The purpose of Satan

[ahmedito]

The fact is, I believe in God, and even though I dont believe in the "figure" of Satan, I do believe that there must be some opposite to God, in the sense that God is an incredibly benevolent force. I basically think though, that believing in God, or in any religion is an act that is very hard to most human beings in these, because it is an act of complete humillity and we humans are an egoist race; and now we put our faith in science and reason, when before we put our faith in God. I dont think it is a coincidence that the people who wrote the book of Genesis portrayed the first sin by Lucifer to be that of pride, or the first sin of man to be the sin of pride. I think pride is what keeps people from listening to their instinct of believing in God.


Maybe physicallity is an illusion and the only real thing is thought... maybe not. Maybe I'm rambling; maybe there is no way for a human being to reach a conclusion about life and the world without outside perspective. When you don't believe in God, I think your world is limited to the tangible and what your senses perceive; you may advance a lot with logic, but you will only advance within your barriers. When you believe in God, you realize that the world you live in is governed by reason, but at the same time you also open your heart, sould and mind to something far greater than the constricting limits of our reasonable reality. You have faith that there is something beyond, and you actually realize that this is part of an instinct for many people. You must sit down with yourself in a quit place and ask yourself: Do you truly believe you are alone? Do you truly believe that there is nothing else apart from the world you live in? Something beyond your tangible reality? Do you honestly feel that you, and everything that is a part of you can be reduced to an organ an electric impulses? Do you have a soul?

[Spatula]

Ahmedito, you have stated very good valid and thought-provoking points I might add.  I like how you said if even if in the first place there was a God but not the exact institute of religion, we'd still be missing some part of the being if we only counted the physical realm.  

[m1469]

Ahmedito, I think that you have some very important perspectives here.  I am particularly interested in your ideas about physicality being an illusion, and thought being reality.  (Although I do not know too much about Quantum Physics (yet), I believe it would have somewhat to say on this particular subject).  

This would certainly change a person's perspective on things- eh?

m1469

[ahmedito]

Quantum physics is a very interesting field, in the sense that it completely changed the view of reality that most people have. What once was a rock solid mass of molecules, stringed together obeying the classic Newtonian laws of physics, suddenly became a mass of impermanent particles... a kind of mush in which the constant movement, change and relationship between particles is actually more defining than the actual particles. I really do believe that the only absolute truth is the existence of God and that no matter how much investigation you attempt, there will always be more to uncover, because God goes beyond reason and only our thought and faith make him real to us. He exists despite us, but he will only be real to you if you can open you heart to the possibility of God. So to someone who does not believe, he will merely be a sort of fantasy being. This is faith.

[xvimbi]

Quantum physics is a very interesting field, in the sense that it completely changed the view of reality that most people have.

You stated this absolutely correctly. Quantum physics changed the "view of reality", but it didn't change reality itself. Until the middle of the 19th century, people were convinced there was no free will, because Newtonian physics does not allow a free will. Theologians, scientists and regular people were really upset and confused about this. Then, Henri Poincare came along and demonstrated that there are phenomena that cannot be predicted with high accuracy for as long as we want, and all of a sudden, we again had a free will. Heisenberg with the discovery of his Uncertainty Principle actually described what "free will" is in terms of physics.

However, this is only how we see the world. We are part of the world, and it is known (Goedels Incompleteness Theorem) that one cannot explain everything in a system without leaving the system and looking at it from the outside, so to speak. The only one who could do that is [insert names of various gods].

In the presence of [insert names of various gods], we are merely part of a scheme that this being has devised, playing according to rules that this being layed down like we play chess or the piano. Although it may seem that there is enough freedom to move around within these rules, we are ultimately confined.

As a consequence, whenever rules are present, there cannot be a free will.

Or asked in a different way: how do you know that you really have a free will? It is troubling to many Christians (and believers in other gods) to point out that if one proposes an almighty being (or at least a being that is more powerful than us humans), one must be worried about potential manipulation by that being. Most believers then say "My God would never do that. I trust my God". Does that sound familiar with respect to some modern political leaders? True independence (free will) exists only in the absence of such beings. In religion, there is no free will.

Physics is no better when it comes to free will. The only tool that allows us to have a "free will", the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is not under our control. Therefore, what we call "free will" in physics is in fact "random, unpredictable will".

Consequence: There is no "free will" whatsoever!

[janice]

I think some of you guys should be careful where you end up with your arguments.

Let us consider some analogies.

You recently bought a shop in a new neighbourhood.. One day some Italian guy comes around and tells you how much he loves you, how much he would like you to be part of the local community. And how much he wishes you to succeed. But this of course depends on you having some sort of insurance against something bad happening to you or to your shop. You need some protection, “capici?”. “protection against what?” you may ask, if you are naïve enough. But we all know that the guy who is selling protection to you is the one you need protection from. Paying him will avoid him doing nasty things to you and to your shop. He may even assure you that he wants you to do it out of your own free will. He may even sincerely believe that he wants you to love him and the family, to give them “respect”. Love and respect “the family”, and everything will be fine! You will be in heaven! Refuse to pay the protection and all hell will break loose. He may even come accompanied with the local law enforcer (= the police) to show you that they too are in their payroll. Would you consider that this is a situation where you have free will?

Now imagine you have a child, say 4 years old. This child is kidnapped. The kidnapper tells you that you must pay ransom or your child will die. Would you say that you have free will? Would you call that a fair choice?

Now imagine that some man (or if you are a man, some women) develops a crush on you. S/he just wants to be loved. Of course s/he wants you to love him/her out of your heart, out of your own desire. S/he does not want you to love him/her out of fear of consequences. But if you do not love him/her, s/he will burn your house, spread malicious gossip about you, kill your dog, and make a scandal at your work place. Would you say that you have any free will on this matter?

Are you sure you want to tell me that there is a “god” who, if I don’t love him and do as he says will throw me in hell and call that free will? Well, being the sort of guy I am, I would rather go to hell than to submit to this sort of blackmail.

So, I should be very careful, because as m1469 has hinted you may have completely misunderstood the issues here. Surely you do not want to equate your god to a mafia operative, or to a kidnapper, or to a stalker, do you?

By the way, in eternity there is no time. There is nothing complicated about it. Eternity is to time as depth is to a plane. This means, fellow pianists, that there is no music in Heaven (since music is time dependent). Consider this before rushing to buy your tickets.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Imagine there is a man who thinks of himself as "good."  He says, "I don't have to concern myself with future things.  When the time comes, if there is a god, he'll weigh my bad against my good and I'll make it."  Of course this man is comparing "his good works" to that of Adolf Hitler, not Mother Teresa.  He also conveniently forgets that God has said our righteousness (good works) are like filthy rags.  God's standard for being with Him is total perfection and we miss the mark by a mile.

Now imagine a man who believes his actions affect no one but himself (the victimless crime motif).  However, his "self-focus" eliminates his ability or desire to help others in their times of need.  He conveniently forgets that he was made for a purpose, that of "loving God and loving others." (Commonly called "The Great Commandment") that Jesus himself spoke to sum up all the laws mentioned in the Bible (all 613 of them by someone's count).  We were made for "community" (hint: in Genesis 2 - "It is not good that man should be alone, I will make a helper (companion) for him.)  We were also made to be with and desire God.  If a man doesn't do the above, that's not God's fault, the man has just rejected all that God has designed for the man to be complete, whole, purposeful, hopeful, excited, . . . you get the idea.  Jesus said, "The thiefs purpose is to kill and destroy.  My purpose is to give life in all it's fullness." (John 10:10)

Now imagine a man who has lived an incredibly evil life.  He has murdered innocents, raped children, and robbed poor people,  He is finally caught and sentenced to death.  However, his crimes have been so great the judge makes an exception to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and sentences him to a death so diabolical that it makes the humanbeing watching shudder.  Now imagine at the last minute someone steps forward and offers their child to suffer this punishment in place of this evil man.  (Believe it or not, that kind of law, someone taking on another's penalty, is still on the books).  Now imagine the child suffers and dies a horrible death in place of this evil man.  You would think the man would be grateful, thank the father who offered his son, and desire to serve the man the rest of his life.  Instead, this man spits on the child as he dies, and goes back to his evil life.  The father, having "bought this man's freedom" with the death of his child, would then have every right to take this evil man's life.

We are the above examples.  Our problem is that we never compare ourselves to perfect Holiness, of which God is.  We also tend to reject His purpose for our lives, and the perfect sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ.  We live in a "fallen" world as a result of our sin (as defined by God).  You don't even have to be a "believer" to recognize there is evil in the world.  Romans 1 addresses this whole issue of those who reject God's truth.  Verse 22 says, "Thinking themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead."  We make excuses and give flawed examples to explain away God, and in general, reject truth.  The amazing thing is that God still loves us despite our sin.  He gives us all the same amount of time to find him too . . . it's called a life time.  No matter what age you die when compared to all of eternity, we all get the same time to find Him.  You obviously know of the truth Bernhard, from the examples you give to push the truth away.  But have you ever really investigated "the Truth?"  Jesus said He is "The way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him."  (John14:6)  All you need to do to expose and to prove that God is a fraud or non-existent is to disprove the ressurection of Christ.  Since the entire Bible was written aiming at that one point in time, Christ's ressurection, disprove it and the "house of cards" of Chrisitanity crumbles.  Two contemporary men who have tried that are Josh McDowell and Lee Stobel.  McDowell eventually wrote 2 books, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Vols. 1 & 2.  Lee Strobel wrote, "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith."  The last 2 books are easy reads and interesting to the max.  (Strobel was an atheist and the homicide reporter for the Chicago Sun Times.)  Both men are now ardent followers of the God-man Jesus Christ.  They took the time to "disprove the ressurection."  My challenge to you Bernhard is, will you?

BTW - God invented music and will have no trouble letting it ring through heaven for all eternity.  Only this time the music will be perfect.

[ChristmasCarol]

BTW - God invented music and will have no trouble letting it ring through heaven for all eternity.  Only this time the music will be perfect.

Let's see.  God is perfect.  Everything that is good comes from God.  We are in God's image, except when we choose not to act like this perfect being.  Problem is, there is always some individual's ego behind these judgement calls.  You are just putting out there words that you have heard over and over.  What if I posed an idea to you that I had a perfect idea that i couldn't prove, you'd just have to take it on faith?  What kind of a father puts his son through  terrible things for the benefit of others?  Ungrateful humans who may or may not appreciate it even.  Does your god go by the name of Allah, Yahweh, the All-In-All?  God - or this being you ask us to believe in, loves me?  Interesting.  The fundamentalist principles are absurdly hard to swallow.  Have you ever studied the origins of the Bible.  I believe there were 33 authors (maybe more).  Then there's the other group of men who got together and picked from a select group of writings what they would or would not include in the Bible.  Then there's the problem of translation from Greek and Hebrew.  I've heard sermons given on every word of a verse in the Bible as though God spake each one of them.  In truth, some theology student translated this "every" word with his own interpretation.  Wouldn't it be grande if things were so simple as uttering a few words to some unseen being and all would be well?  For my part, evil is the absence of good.  Simple really.  God - all that is life - is everywhere.  Only I prefer Goddess, cause, I'm a woman and that makes more sense to me.  One thing that really bothers the heck out of me about fundamentalists is their need to have me believe the same as they do.  I'm all set thanks.  And no, I don't think that Satan has gotten the better part of me.

[janice]

 The fundamentalist principles are absurdly hard to swallow.

I don't know if I am doing this quote thingy right, so please bear with me. But I will comment on this part of your post before going on.  I wholeheartedly agree with you.  It's kind of a blow to my ego, to know that I cannot do anything to save myself, but rather I have to throw myself at God's mercy.  God must REALLY REALLY love me, if Jesus--the God-man--went thru this for me JUST SO that I may spend eternity WITH Him, and not APART from Him!
[/quote]  Have you ever studied the origins of the Bible.  I believe there were 33 authors (maybe more).[/quote]

Yes I have.

[/quote]  Then there's the other group of men who got together and picked from a select group of writings what they would or would not include in the Bible.  Then there's the problem of translation from Greek and Hebrew. [/quote]

Yes, and isn't it amazing?  Because there is internal harmony within the Bible.  It will never contradict itself!!

[janice]

Again, please bear with me because I don't know how to do the quote thingy.

 You are just putting out there words that you have heard over and over.

Errrr...........no, these aren't MY words.  They are God's words.
[/quote]  One thing that really bothers the heck out of me about fundamentalists is their need to have me believe the same as they do.[/quote]

I don't "need" to have you believe the same way that I do.  However, GOD needs for you to believe what He has to say.[/quote]

[/quote]  I'm all set thanks. [/quote]

Are you?

[Shagdac]

While I certainly respect everyone's right to believe as they wish, I wanted to share a few views on Bernhards post. Bernhard, you views are very interesting and I can certainly understand what you are saying. However, there is a difference between the free will you are speaking of, and that when someone chooses to follow God. The kind you speak of costs dearly. Luckily, mine is absolutely 100% FREE!

Bernhard wrote:

But we all know that the guy who is selling protection to you is the one you need protection from. Paying him will avoid him doing nasty things to you and to your shop.

No, I agree, this is not "free will". This is pure and simple Blackmail....and will cost you big bucks $$$!

The kidnapper tells you that you must pay ransom or your child will die.

Again, no argument here, definately not "free will", blackmail. And will cost a great deal of $$$, with NO guarantee of the childs safety in return.

But if you do not love him/her, s/he will burn your house, spread malicious gossip about you, kill your dog, and make a scandal at your work place.

Again, blackmail you are being forced and will receive nothing good in return. It may not actually cost you money, but you will end up having to live and pretend you love someone you hate with no chance for happiness.

Surely you do not want to equate your god to a mafia operative, or to a kidnapper, or to a stalker, do you?

NEVER!!!! And I never would equate my God with any of these horrible things. However these people are SELLING something. Whether it be a childs life, your sanity, or a life of unhappiness. And the cost to YOU is great. And what you get in return in not good.

But with God....it's different. It does not cost anything. It is free...and totally 100% free gift. God paid the debt he didn't owe.....and we owe a debt we can NEVER repay! We can't even try to repay him. We will always fall short of the Glory of God. So he made it easy for us. All he asks, is that we believe. That's it. Pure and simple.
And in return for such a small sacrifice....he will reward us with eternal salvation. He knows we can never "earn" our way into heaven, so it's virtually impossible for him to blackmail us! It simply cannot be done. There is nothing good enough we can do here on earth to would justify his gift to us. So instead, he just gives it to us and only asks in return that we believe.

Now...can I actually PROVE to someone without a shadow of a doubt that yes, God exists, without question? No, not really. No one can. But what would it mean to ask us to believe in something that has to be proven?

There are many questions that simply cannot be answered. No matter how long, and who tries to prove what....there are some things man will never understand. But on the end day, all will be made clear.

I guess what I wonder about...is why would anyone NOT want to believe??? If given the choice between believing that I would die, be buried, rot in the ground and that was it.....OR, that when I die, I will receive eternal life everlasting, and be reunited with loved ones whom have departed from this earth, with no pain, no suffering, and great happiness forever and ever....
Hmmmmm...let's see, ....what should I pick?
Does it really even take consideration.

The more one believes, and the more one reads the Bible and prays for understanding, the more clearly everything becomes to them. We begin to see things as God opens them up to us. The closer one walks with God, the more he reveals to us. The more we feel him, and hear him speak with us..(No, not literal voices!) the closer our walk with him becomes.

I used to think much the way you have expressed yourself, and many others that I have read. I used to argue till I was blue in the face, trying to "trick" others who did believe, or "catch" them in something that they couldn't prove. I have literally walked on BOTH sides of the fence. And while I NO...cannot prove to someone that does not believe that there IS a God, I myself have proof since I have choosen to follow him.

I used to look at Christians (whom I used to call "Jesus Freaks")...and really thinK they were nut cases. I wondered, "How can they be so happy all the time", "How can they love everyone and always be so hopeful"...(many of my friends that were Christians seemed to have hard lives...they were ill, or had lost their homes, cars, jobs etc....but they always seemed so happy.

Then a strange thought occured to me that in many ways...I had so much more than them (material wise)...but I wasn't that happy. Just what was it that they had, that I didn't?

It was not until years later, after finding God, that I realized that all that time that I thought I had so much and they had so little......it was completely opposite.

They had everything, they had Jesus. And it was I who had nothing at all. Once a person has felt the true presence of the Lord, believe me, they will need to ask for proof no more. What the Lord offers is not blackmail, we do have complete free will when it comes to choosing to believe or not. After all, if one does NOT believe, then they will not believe there are any consequences after death, as they don't exist anyway.

And if one DOES believe, if won't matter if consequences do exist, as the person will never have to face them!

Sorry if I have rambled, but I don't see your comparisons as being equal. A stalker, ganster or kidnapper will blackmail, and the cost with be great.

What God has to offer can never be bought, its free.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for listening!

S

[Spatula]

Now...can I actually PROVE to someone without a shadow of a doubt that yes, God exists, without question? No, not really. No one can. But what would it mean to ask us to believe in something that has to be proven?

There are many questions that simply cannot be answered. No matter how long, and who tries to prove what....there are some things man will never understand. But on the end day, all will be made clear.

I guess what I wonder about...is why would anyone NOT want to believe??? If given the choice between believing that I would die, be buried, rot in the ground and that was it.....OR, that when I die, I will receive eternal life everlasting, and be reunited with loved ones whom have departed from this earth, with no pain, no suffering, and great happiness forever and ever....
Hmmmmm...let's see, ....what should I pick?
Does it really even take consideration.

Indeed, I might have not said this before but it is not our mission to prove to the world that God exists.  We cannot prove that he exists, thus the concept of faith comes into play.  

Faith is pretty much the same as believing that God is there.  Um..we all know that apples exists because we can feel it, we can sense it and we can eat it too!

Applying that thinking into God is pretty much the same, although we cannot see or touch him physically, but we know through faith that he is just as real as that apple in my fridge!

[bernhard]

Er…

I don’t think you guys are getting my point at all.

I am not discussing religion here.

I am discussing the way some of you have decided to talk about religion and to describe the issues involved.

I am saying (and saw no evidence to the contrary) that you are describing your god as a mafia operative/stalker/kidnapper.

I am suggesting that you should consider carefully your analogies or you are going to end up painting yourselves into a corner.

Janice: however interesting your post maybe, it does not really address the issue I raised (not religion, but the way to talk about it).

Your analogy of a person who lived an incredibly evil life is a good example of what I am drawing attention to.

Now imagine a man who has lived an incredibly evil life.  He has murdered innocents, raped children, and robbed poor people,  He is finally caught and sentenced to death.

Yes, I can imagine such a situation.

However, his crimes have been so great the judge makes an exception to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and sentences him to a death so diabolical that it makes the human being watching shudder.

Now you have lost me completely.

Any judge doing that would be immediately disbarred. The point of legal punishment is not revenge. Even the death sentence, although
highly controversial, in the places where it is still used steps are taken that the process is as quick and as devoid of unnecessary suffering as possible. Simply the situation you are creating does not make sense.  It would make the judge and the legal system worse than the criminal.

Now imagine at the last minute someone steps forward and offers their child to suffer this punishment in place of this evil man.  (Believe it or not, that kind of law, someone taking on another's penalty, is still on the books).

This parent would be immediately approached by social services, who would quite rightly consider him to be a nutter and put the child into custody. No judge would accept such exchange. You went from not making sense to being completely ludicrous here. And by the way, I never heard of anyone taking on another penalty, and frankly I don’t believe in it. Perhaps Allan, who is a lawyer could throw some light here.

 Now imagine the child suffers and dies a horrible death in place of this evil man.

Well as I said before, it would never come to that. However, if that actually happened in any civilised society, everyone involved (the father, the judge, the juri) would be thrown in jail for a very long time and rightfully so.

You would think the man would be grateful, thank the father who offered his son, and desire to serve the man the rest of his life.  Instead, this man spits on the child as he dies, and goes back to his evil life.

Again, you lost me completely here. First you describe a man that is the epitome of evil, and then you would expect him to be grateful? Why? I am surprised at your surprise that he spits on the child and goes back to his evil ways. For him to act any differently, he wouldn’t be the evil person you described, he wouldn’t have been sentenced to a diabolical death, a nutter wouldn’t come forward to sacrifice a child etc. etc.

The father, having "bought this man's freedom" with the death of his child, would then have every right to take this evil man's life.

Again, you lost me here. Did the evil man asked the nutter father to exchange his penalty with the child? Did they sign a contract that in case the evil mans didn’t mend his way that nutter father could kill him? And ievenif they did, would sucha contract have any legal validity? Sorry, Janice, the nutter wouldn’t have any right whatsoever to kill anyone (not even his child). Quite clearly the nutter you describe is in even worse shape than the evil man. In no civilised society does the law accept that you kill someone if they don’t behave the way you want.

This brings me back to my original point. I understand that you are passionate about your beliefs. But is this a good way to talk about them? Do you really want to describe God as nutter who is into child murder?

You may remember a case a couple of years ago of an American lady who had two children (maybe three, I can’t remember). She got a lover, and to prove how much she loved him, she put the two (or three) children in the car and threw the car on lake, killing her children.

Do you really want to describe god so that he becomes on a par with such nutters?

Please understand me correctly: I am not saying that god is nutters. I am saying that you are describing him so.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

P.S. Not everyone belives the world to be evil.  :oBuddhists and Taoists (to mention just two examples) believe this to be the most perfect world. And scientists (those followers of Satan ) are fond of saying that the Universe is neutral: it is we that may like or dislike this or that portion of it. So it is not a question of good x evil, but of like x dislike. Oh no! does that mean personal taste? Does that imply tolerance to others?  ::)Oh I hate that!  >:(Crucify the infidels!

Best wishes again,
Bernhard.

[thracozaag]

god gave us and him free will we can chose to obey or dissoby.

 Don't get me started on the concept of free will.

koji (STSD)

[m1469]

For whatever this is worth, I must say that I am thus far in complete agreeance with Bernhard.  I also must point out a few things...

Because of the things that Bernhard is talking about, Meisel's original question, which is very legitimate I might add, has never been truly answered.  It has not really even been fully addressed.  And, actually, many of the things that have been given to him/her as "answers" actually set the stage for the very question Meisel has put forth, in effect, posing the very same question.

The reason I have brought up "time" and pointed it out in this thread, is because most of the arguments and questions here are based on some human concept of "time", which is in itself mortality and finiteness.  And, as Bernhard has pointed out, there is no "time" in eternity.   The important thing to consider here, is that it is impossible for both eternity, infinity, and "time" as humans think of it (a start a middle and an end) to exist together in any way.  There cannot be one of them now, and another one later, by the very nature of eternity and infinity.  They do not have a relationship of any sort.  So even now, and forever, only one must be true!  

A couple of the reasons this matters in the case of this topic is because it greatly affects the entire concept of creation, as well as the existence of "good" and "evil" or the "creation" and any form of it, as many people are inclined to think of these things.  And, if thought truly is important to our sense of well-being, which most people could agree that it is to some degree, the concept of what evil is and its ramifications, changes drastically.

I apologize if this is not something that is easily digested, it is not my purpose to confuse the situation, but actually quite the opposite.  But, if you stop the arguments in your head for even just a moment, and truly ponder what I have said, there is reason behind it even when it is not fully grasped.

That's all I will say for now.

m1469

[ChristmasCarol]

The important thing to consider here, is that it is impossible for both eternity, infinity, and "time" as humans think of it (a start a middle and an end) to exist together in any way.  There cannot be one of them now, and another one later, by the very nature of eternity and infinity.  They do not have a relationship of any sort.  So even now, and forever, only one must be true!  

Love it!  One of the difficulties with such discussions is that there are so many emotions attached to the words themselves.  Ever read Perzig's 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'?  He has a brilliant discourse on the word quality.  It is impossible to quantify and describe it as a fixed entity.  A good top ten impossible to have agreement on words might be; God, love, quality, education, healthy, races, good, evil, significance, wisdom.  Anybody care to pick some?  

[janice]

I'm not sure that I understand what your question is, Christmas Carol.

[super_ardua]

 A good top ten impossible to have agreement on words might be; God, love, quality, education, healthy, races, good, evil, significance, wisdom.  Anybody care to pick some?  

True.

[ninja600rs]

I’m not sure exactly what you are saying about time, but there is without a doubt a beginning of time.  Given the nature of time there has to have been a beginning.  Stephen Hawking has written some interesting things about this.  His theory is that time (of this universe) was started so many billions of years ago and prior to that there was “imaginary” time.  It was from this “imaginary” time that our current linear time was spawned.  However if this “imaginary” time is on a different plane is it still (does this word even apply here) ticking along?  

The way that I like to think about it is to imagine a circle and I would consider all of this circle the spiritual world or for Stephen Hawking’s theory “imaginary” time.  Then imagine a straight line going through the circle staying on the inside and not touching the sides of the circle so that the circle fully encompasses the line.  I would consider that line to be the time “line” for this universes time.  Make any sense?

I think that no matter how you look at it there has to be at least two different types of “time” for us to currently exist at this point in a linear timeline.

-Jon  

[janice]

Bernhard,
 --maybe I didn't describe this correctly. Let me try to explain......

God is a God of LOVE, and not vengeance.  However, for God to be perfect, he must also be perfectly just, therefore sin cannot go unpunished.

Let me try to make this personal here.
Bernhard, I believe that you are probably a very good, moral person.  However, you have broken God's law. (I have too) God cannot allow sin in His presence.  It's not that He's a "stern father", rather He is so holy that sin CANNOT be in His presence.  Even though you are a "good person" (and I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are a "better person" than me.  Really. ) But being "good and moral" won't get you to heaven, because your sins, however small, have earned you eternal separation from God.  The Bible says that we are all far away.  God, who is all-loving, desires that you (and this applies to each one of us) live in His presence forever and ever.  That is how much He loves you.  However, your sins have separated you from God.  Jesus (who was actually God in the flesh--He was fully human and fully divine at the same time.).  Jesus, as God's son, was SENT by God, but Jesus WAS God (the 2nd person of the Trinity)and died willingly for you.  If, however, Jesus had only died a horrible death, then that would be the end.  Christianity would have fallen apart there.  BUT, Jesus rose from the dead.  (No fairy tale, over 500 people saw him after he died).  Can the Ressurection of Jesus be disproved? No.  So, the "ball is in your court" so to speak.  It's in everyone's court. So we must ask ourselves "What am I going to do about this?"  Will I be grateful and show my gratitude to God for this, or will I reject it, and turn my back on it?"  THIS is what I was trying to say.  Hope that it is more understandable this time!

Clear as mud? :-/

( And if this seems harsh, keep in mind that these are God's words, not mine.  I'm just the messenger!  But I will gladly tell anyone more of this if they ask me, because this is sooooo very incredible, because God redeemed me thru Jesus (redeem means to "buy back")and I will serve Him for the rest of my life out of gratitude!)

[m1469]

First of all, it is eternity itself which suggests there to be only one "type" of "time".  Eternity suggests existence is only now, and unmeasurable as people may think of it.  In fact, eternity suggests that we do not exist "at this point in a linear timeline" and that existence itself is non-linear; an everpresent now and in this now lay our own and only existence (more like this popular circle idea).

Even speaking from a completely linear point of view, literally, what is "time"?  It is literally a human measurement in attempt to oraganize existence by it's own standard.  It is the literal recording of the Earth spinning on its own axis and the revolutions of this Earth around the sun.  Fine.  But even within human consciousness on this single planet, time is not defining.  It changes from one place to another, from one hemishpere to the next.  For example, the "time" at the top of this forum page states that it is 8:43 pm..  No its not!!  Not where I live!  When you read this, it will no longer be that time, but it will be now.  Where is now?  It is different for me than for you when measured by time, is it not?   Is somebody to tell me that this is the extent of all of existence?  That the Earth and its obscure and disfunctional idea of time is really the center of the universe?

Let's look out a little.  What time is it on Mars?  Because of its size it turns on its own axis at a different rate than does the earth.  As well, it makes a full revolution around the sun at a much different rate.  So, what is "time"?    What about planets which orbit around an entirely different sun altogether (and there are many, many)?  Where is the universal law from which we derrive our own measuring as final and something that one must adhere to?  There is none by this form of describing existence.

It is only within a linear timeline that the concept of any "passing" of time, or "time" ticking away exists, as though each moment has its very own beginnng, middle and end.  Please tell me when this moment ends and the next begins.

Eternity suggests that there is a central cause, around which the totality of existence in all ways and in every moment revolves.  So, if this could be true, how then could we be exempt from this ever?

And even more pertinent, how could this central and only noumenon cause more than one "quality" of phenomena?

m1469

[xvimbi]

The important thing to consider here, is that it is impossible for both eternity, infinity, and "time" as humans think of it (a start a middle and an end) to exist together in any way.  There cannot be one of them now, and another one later, by the very nature of eternity and infinity.  They do not have a relationship of any sort.  So even now, and forever, only one must be true!

Disagree. Eternity and time are not mutually exclusive. In fact eternity without the concept of time is impossible. Time still passes in eternity. Eternity simply means that time never ends. If time ended, everything would be over. Time means change. As long as there is change of any kind, there is time.

[xvimbi]

Sorry, but what you wrote is complete rubbish on so many levels, it's hard to address all of those issues.

First of all, it is eternity itself which suggests there to be only one "type" of "time".  Eternity suggests existence is only now, and unmeasurable as people may think of it.  In fact, eternity suggests that we do not exist "at this point in a linear timeline" and that existence itself is non-linear; an everpresent now and in this now lay our own and only existence (more like this popular circle idea).

Huh? Read my previous post.

Even speaking from a completely linear point of view, literally, what is "time"?  It is literally a human measurement in attempt to oraganize existence by it's own standard.  It is the literal recording of the Earth spinning on its own axis and the revolutions of this Earth around the sun.

Time is not a human concept! Time means change, e.g. a photon moving from point A to point B across the Universe.

But even within human consciousness on this single planet, time is not defining.  It changes from one place to another, from one hemishpere to the next.  For example, the "time" at the top of this forum page states that it is 11:47 am.  No its not!!  Not where I live!  When you read this, it will no longer be that time, but it will be now.  Where is now?  It is different for me than for you when measured by time, is it not?   Is somebody to tell me that this is the extent of all of existence?  That the Earth and its obscure and disfunctional idea of time is really the center of the universe?

You are confusing "time" with "time point". The Greeks sorted this out already with their concepts of "chronos" and "kyros". Chronos is the passage of time. Kyros is a moment in time. We are concerned here with "chronos", not "kyros".

Let's look out a little.  What time is it on Mars?  Because of its size it turns on its own axis at a different rate than does the earth.  As well, it makes a full revolution around the sun at a much different rate.  So, what is "time"?    What about places that circle around an entirely different sun altogether (and there are many, many)?  Where is the universal law?  There is none by this form of describing existence.

Utter nonsense! The fact that a Ferrari can drive faster or a planet can spin faster or one person can play piano faster than another does not mean that there are different concepts of time. If anything, time passes at different rates on Mars vs. Earth because of their different mass. This is not an anomaly of the universal concept of time.

Eternity suggests that there is a central cause, around which the totality of existence in all ways and in every moment revolves.  So, if this could be true, how then could we be exempt from this ever?

I got dizzy from shaking my head...

[janice]

I got dizzy from shaking my head...

So do I!! LOL

How about if we start a new thread on the question of "What is eternity?" because we kind of got off the original subject of "Purpose of Satan".

[m1469]

Dear xvimbi,

In the event that you are indeed in the position of higher understanding than I, on this particular subject, as you seem to be curtly implying, than I should approach you with the uttmost respect.

If this is so, please see me as a willing student.  Take compassion on my seeming flounderings, as a parent would a child who is obviously speaking and acting out of ignorance.

In the event that you are truly trying to help me learn something which you have discovered to be true and will in turn be of use to me and my life, understand that my pride will be much less rebellious should you not call my thoughts "rubbish" .

Instead, perhaps you could explain to me more about what it is that you are saying?

These are my questions:

1) if change constitutes time, what is it that changes?  And where?  And why?  Who does this change depend on and effect?  What is that mind which measures such change?  What is it measured to?

2)  if there is indeed linear "chornos" then wouldn't all of existence come down to definable "kyros"?  And if it is so, who defines it?  And, wouldn't the discrepency between points-in-time, or kyros, reveal a flaw within "chronos"?  If there is only linear "chronos", (and I do not see a way around it being linear), creating eternity, along with it's "kyros" doesn't that imply there to be only one rate of time passing?

Again, if it is error that you are seeing the need to treat me of, then please do so with compassionate truth rather than ridicule; as your words with compassion will stand much more chance of being useful to me in the requested condition.

Thanks,
m1469

[m1469]

And, yes.  I apologize that where the topic is at present seems to be distant from the original question.  I promise this is not my intention and actually, the topic of eternity seems to me to greatly affect the proposition that there is such a being called "Satan".  

But, I see that discussing this is not helping.  So, I promise I will not bring it up anymore.  Carry on with how it was going, because there is no reason as to why we should not have yet another thread over religious discussion that leaves everybody in the same place it started, and without any conclusions.

[xvimbi]

Dear xvimbi,

In the event that you are truly trying to help me learn something which you have discovered to be true and will in turn be of use to me and my life, understand that my pride will be much less rebellious should you not call my thoughts "rubbish" .

Perhaps, I should have said "nonsense", because your thoughts don't make sense (at least not to me).

These are my questions:

1) if change constitutes time, what is it that changes?  And where?  And why?  Who does this change depend on and effect?  What is that mind which measures such change?  What is it measured to?

Change means any property you can imagin changing its value. For example, some particle changing its location, which is the basis for pretty much all the changes I can think of. You realize that I am approaching the subject from a scientific point of view. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, so this is justified. Yet, even if one does not invoke particles or any form of energy, when something changes, it is in principle reversible, which means that something is indeed "happening". Because nothing is instantaneous, any change will take some time. Therefore, there must be time. If nothing changes, there can be no exchange of information, i.e. communication. The end of time is the end of everything. The existence of time does not depend on who makes things happening or where they are happening.

2)  if there is indeed linear "chornos" then wouldn't all of existence come down to definable "kyros"?  And if it is so, who defines it?  And, wouldn't the discrepency between points-in-time, or kyros, reveal a flaw within "chronos"?  If there is only linear "chronos", (and I do not see a way around it being linear), creating eternity, along with it's "kyros" doesn't that imply there to be only one rate of time passing?

I admit I have a hard time following your arguments, except for your last question in this paragraph: Time does not pass with the same rate at all points in the Universe. Time is relative (as Einstein put forward). For example, somebody flying around the Earth with 40.000 miles/hour ages less quickly than somebody sitting in front of the TV in Islington. What do you mean with "linear"? Do you mean "directional"?

[meisel]

Yes, the discussing topic is somewhat away from the original one, and i agree with you, m1469, i haven`t really got a decent answer, at least it seems to me. But i don`t think i ever will either, so please continue your discussion. Why stop harvesting a fruitful tree to start at an empty one, right?

[chopiabin]

Who says there must be a purpose in life? Why must there be a reason for everything? Perhaps we like playing piano because it positively affects the chemicals in our brains. The idea that everything has a reason is a human construct that we have foolishly applied to the entire universe - something that has been around for longer than the earth and is completely uninfluenced by humanity. Also, although I am a complete atheist, I take offense at the notion that Christians are taught to be Christlike. Christ was a pacifist who owned absolutely nothing and gave everything he ever had to others. He claimed to be a "son of man" and that is what he was.

Also, about Satan, if you actually research the origins of Chirstianity you will find that it is a combination of Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is a belief in the duality of the universe, and this is where the original concept of Satan came from in Christianity.

[chopiabin]

Also I would like to comment on Ahmedito's thoughts on the pride of humanity. Does no one find it interseting that the earliest religions required humans to sacrifice to nature to protect themselves, but now that we are at the pinnacle of advancement we have a god that must sacrifice to us? The idea that this whole earth was created for humans seems to me to be completely egocentric. It also seems somewhat convenient that we can "sin" as much as we want as long as we "have Christ." That seems like just a convenient way to escape responsibility/guilt for one's actions.  Are you actually telling me that a serial rapist and murderer can get into heaven as long as he "has Jesus in his heart"?

Janice - Prove to me that Christ was resurrected - not that he lived, not that he was crucified, but that he was resurrected. And using the Bible to prove itself is not acceptable.

[janice]

Christ was a pacifist

But what about when Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple?  (one of my favorite things that Jesus did! lol)

 He claimed to be a "son of man" and that is what he was.  

He also claimed to be the "son of God".

I finally figured out how to do the multiple quote thingy right!  I'm getting carried away with it, it's just so much fun!!  lol

[chopiabin]

Who said pacifists are always nice? They were desecrating something he held sacred. I'm generally a pacifist, but if someone dug up my dead grandmother and raped her body I'd probably be a little miffed. Do  you read Greek or Hebrew?

You still didn't prove it. Or respond to my various comments and queries.

[janice]

Do  you read Greek or Hebrew?

No I don't.  Why do you ask?

You still didn't prove it

Prove what? My apologies if I overlooked something.

Or respond to my various comments and queries.  

I am really sorry!  I saw that you have asked questions here and there in your posts, but I had no idea that the questions were directed at ME!  Duh on me!

[chopiabin]

Janice - Prove to me that Christ was resurrected - not that he lived, not that he was crucified, but that he was resurrected. And using the Bible to prove itself is not acceptable.

I thought that if I used your name you would know to whom these questions were directed. I guess I just find it funny that you talk about a book that attempts to disprove the resurrection of Christ, yet you make no attempt to give any evidence that it did happen. It seems like you have certain answers prepared and when someone asks questions that you are not ready for you simply ignore them.  The reason why I ask about the Greek or Hebrew is that the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek and then eventually to English. There are very many different interpretations.

[chopiabin]

Will you (Janice) respond to the questions and comments that I have posed in the above posts?

[Spatula]

Oh well, we can't prove it and won't bother to anyways.  
But I'm still believing (happy little spatula)  

I don't need proof, I'm just a happy kitchen utensil.
And like I said before many times, say hello to the concept of "faith".

[janice]

Chopiabin,
What difference does it make if Jesus rose from the dead?

It makes all the difference in the world. If Christ did not rise, then thousands of believers have died as martyrs for a hoax.

If he did rise, then he is still alive and can offer peace to troubled, hurting lives.

Countless scholars--among them the apostle Paul, Augustine, Sir Isaac Newton and C.S. Lewis--believed in the resurrection. We need not fear committing intellectual suicide by believing it also. Where do the facts lead?

Paul, a first-century skeptic-turned believer, wrote that "Christ died for our sins...he was buried...he was raised on the third day...he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (Disciples). After that, he appeared to more than five hundred...at the same time, most of whom are still living." Consider four pieces of evidence:

1. The explosive growth of the Christian movement. Within a few weeks after Jesus was crucified, a movement arose which, by the later admission of its enemies, "upset the world." What happened to ignite this movement shortly after its leader had been executed?

2. The Disciples' changed lives. After Jesus' arrest and crucifixion, most of the Disciples fled in fear. Peter denied three times that he was a follower of Jesus. (The women were braver and stayed to the end.) Yet ten out of the eleven Disciples (Judas committed suicide) were martyred for their faith. According to traditions, Peter was crucified upside down; Thomas was skewered; John was boiled in oil but survived. What turned these cowards into heroes? Each believed he had seen Jesus alive again.

3. The empty tomb. Jesus' corpse was removed from the cross, wrapped like a mummy and placed in a solid-rock tomb. A one-and-a-half to two-ton stone was rolled into a slightly depressed groove to seal the tomb's entrance.

A "Green Beret"-like unit of Roman soldiers guarded the grave. Sunday morning, the stone was found rolled away, the body was gone but the graveclothes were still in place. What happened?

Did Christ's friends steal the body? Perhaps one of the women sweet-talked (karate-chopped?) the guards while the others moved the stone and tiptoed off with the body. Or maybe Peter (remember his bravery) or Thomas (Doubting Thomas) overpowered the guards, stole the body, then fabricated--and died for--a resurrection myth.

These theories hardly seem plausible. The guard was too powerful, the stone too heavy and the disciples too spineless to attempt such a feat.

Did Christ's enemies steal the body? If Romans or Jewish religious leaders had the body, surely they would have exposed it publicly and Christianity would have died out. They didn't, and it didn't.

The "Swoon Theory" supposes that Jesus didn't really die but was only unconscious. The expert Roman executioners merely thought he was dead. After a few days in the tomb without food or medicine, the cool air revived him.

He burst from the 100 pounds of graveclothes, rolled away the stone with his nail-pierced hands, scared the daylights out of the Roman soldiers, walked miles on wounded feet and convinced his Disciples he'd been raised from the dead. This one is harder to believe than the resurrection itself.

4. The appearances of the risen Christ. For 40 days after his death, many different people said they saw Jesus alive. Witnesses included a woman, a shrewd tax collector, several fishermen and over 500 people at once. These claims provide
further eyewitness testimony for the resurrection.

As a skeptic, I realized that attempts to explain away the evidences run into a brick wall of facts that point to one conclusion: Christ is risen.

The above does not constitute an exhaustive proof, rather a reasoned examination of the evidence. Each interested person should evaluate the evidence and decide if it makes sense. Of course, the truth or falsity of the resurrection is a matter of historical fact and is not dependent on anyone's belief. If the facts support the claim, one can conclude that he arose. In any case, mere intellectual assent to the facts does little for one's life.

A major evidence comes experientially, in personally receiving Jesus' free gift of forgiveness. He said, "I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (or her)."

Worth considering?

[janice]

Chopabin, check out this article--it goes into depth more, but it elaborates on the reasons I gave you.  I guessed that it was probably too long to cut & paste here.

https://www.probe.org/docs/resurrec.html

[xvimbi]

And like I said before many times, say hello to the concept of "faith".

At the same time, one must accept that many people do reject faith. Faith leads to the possibility of manipulation and abuse by those who are trusted without questioning. Every human has been in such situations, and it is therefore difficult for many to "trust" in general. It may be different with deities, but since there is no proof, one must go by ones direct senses. And this does not look too rosy, considering past experiences that humankind had with faith and trust.
Faith and trust only work if everybody has the same faith and trusts in the same things/people/deities. As soon as there are differences, everything breaks down.

[janice]

The link that I posted above gives proof of the resurrection of Jesus.  Remember, everything hinges on his resurrection.  If it didn't happen, then Christianity falls apart.

Here is something from the book of Romans, chapter 1.  It speaks of man's sinfulness.  But if you read on, up thru chapter 8 (too much too cut & paste here) you will see that Jesus' blood covers our sins.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served

[Saturn]

I got frustrated reading this thread.

Why is it that when religion comes into the discussion, logic is thrown out the window?  The two need not (and should not) contradict each other.

Bernhard is right in stating that some of you make your god look very bad.

- Saturn

[chopiabin]

I tried to read that link, but it won't really work. Anyway, I'll just comment on your posts, Janice. Basically you just used the Bible to "prove" that the resurrection actually occured. Do you have any documents outside the Bible that confirm the reurrection? Keep in mind that the Bible was written by early Chritians who were clearly biased in favor of their own religion. Again - using the Bible as proof of itself doesn't make sense.

[janice]

Chopiabin,
Thanks for letting me know that the other link didn't work.  Let me know if this link works. This is a chapter from the bookEvidence That Demands A Verdict--by Josh MacDowell.  This is chapter 10, in it's entirety,  entitled "Resurrection--Hoax or History?"  This is FAR too lengthy to do a cut & paste, so I'm sending the link.  This chapter contains the information that you are seeking, but go ahead and check out the other chapters!  It's fascinating reading!

https://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep28.html

[xvimbi]

The link that I posted above gives proof of the resurrection of Jesus.  Remember, everything hinges on his resurrection.  If it didn't happen, then Christianity falls apart.

Janice - Prove to me that Christ was resurrected - not that he lived, not that he was crucified, but that he was resurrected. And using the Bible to prove itself is not acceptable.

Just to clarify: proofs in theology are different from proofs in science. Chopiabin, you have probably asked for scientific proof, whereas Janice gave you theological proofs.

Doesn't anybody think that if it was scientifically proven that a resurrection occurred, that everybody would know about it?

[chopiabin]

That's my point. Proving it theologically takes nothing but reading the bible, so what's the point? I asked her for some evidence outside the bible and she spouted stuff directly from the bible.

[janice]

That's my point. Proving it theologically takes nothing but reading the bible, so what's the point? I asked her for some evidence outside the bible and she spouted stuff directly from the bible.

Ummmm.....did you not read the information in that link?  It's a great deal of information, and from the times that were stamped on our posts, I don't see how you have had the time to read it all.  There is another category of proof, and that is logical and rational proof--when you just kind of smack your forhead, and say "I finally get it!"  

[xvimbi]

 There is another category of proof, and that is logical and rational proof--when you just kind of smack your forhead, and say "I finally get it!"  

Er, "logical" and "rational" do not constitute a category of proof. Both theology and science make logical deductions, but they start from different axioms.

[DanDaMan]

Wow. An aweful lot going on in here. Very, very much. But I haven't seen anyone sumarize the creation of man/Lucifer, and everything so here it goes.

Why did God ever want to make man/angels/the whole bit? Cause he didn't need us. God is the definition of Good. He never needed us. But he chose to create us out of love for us. You've got to realize that God is a God of LOVE. That's what he does. Now just hang on with me, cause I know some people find it hard that God loves them with the whole Hell thingy.

God didn't create Lucifer evil. But he has given everyone free will. Because all he wants is our love. And you can't be forced to love someone...at least not true love. Lucifer grew jealous of God, and so chose by his free will to be without him.

What is God? God is love. God is mercy. God is grace. God is everything that is good. And he gives us the choice to love him. It ain't hard to get to heaven. All you gotta do is love God (and if you love him, you'll do something i'll mention later). But, we all have the choice not to love God in return. And so God gives us our wish by separating us from him. Well, what does it mean to be separated from the only being that is purely Good? To be put in a place that has everything that is Bad! lol. And that bad place is Hell. God doesn't send us to Hell. No, he lets us chose whether we want to love him or not, and then he grants our wish. If we love him...heaven. If we reject him...hell.

God isn't a mean God. No he loves each one of us.

So then, why did God create man/Lucifer if he knew that we'd sin and fall short? Well, I don't know other than he has always loved us, and so has given us the choice.

But since he knew from the beginning that I was going to sin, that you were going to sin, that Lucifer would reject him, he is responsible for us in a way.

God doesn't say, "Ha! You sinned! And by sinning, you have rejected me. So sucks for you! Have a good time in Hell!" No, God isn't like that. He is merciful and loving. And so when he saw that his children, us, fell down with sin, he took pity on us. God provides a way.

And it's a simple way. "God sent his only begotten Son, so that who ever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life," (John 3:16). God has provided a way for everyone. He has sent his son, 100 percent God, 100 percent man, Jesus Christ, as an atonement for our sins. "For is you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Romans 10:9).

God is Love. All he wants is a relationship with each one of us. But he doesn't force it upon us. He lets us choose whether to love him, or reject him. And by loving him, we would obviously believe in the resurrection. But we are responsible for our choices. Because to love God, is to be with him in Heaven. But to reject his love is to be separated from anything and everything that is good.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well there's that. I got some stuff to do, and I've already read plenty off my computer screen today (while catching up with this thread). And so i'll do a clean-up later on with anything i missed.

[chopiabin]

OK. Janice, I went to that last link you posted, and it is clear that you do not understand the difference between hard evidence and a bunch of scholars saying that Christianity is the only religion which CLAIMS to have its leader resurrected. It basically just has scholars saying that "The original accounts of Buddha never ascribe to him any such thing as a resurrection; in fact, in the earliest accounts of his death, namely, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, we read that when Buddha died it was 'with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever remains behind.' " and stuff like this. It also has the biblical accounts of the resurrection (again, that is not evidence, it comes from the bible). Then it has a few ancient historians that lived about a hundred years after Christ describing the Christian religion. Noe of this is "proof". It basically just compares Christianity to other religions. I don't need help in understanding that Christianiyt is the only religion that CLAIMS resurrection, I need proof that it actually happened.

Also, the website is by a Chritian group - an obvious bias.

[nocturn]

Christianiyt isn't the only religion that claims resurrection.

muslims belive in the resurrection of jesus.

the ONLY defrence between charistianity and islam is that they don't belive that jesus is the son of god.
the resurrection is even mentioned in the muslims bible,try reading a traslated version of it.

[janice]

the ONLY defrence between charistianity and islam is that they don't belive that jesus is the son of god.

As far as I know, only Jesus has the empty tomb.