All Comments (35)

Regarding proofs that atheists/agnostics might accept for the existence of god(s):

"Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." Mt 21:21

I'm assuming there are a lot of uber-faithful people in Washington, D.C. today. They could shut my skeptical mouth forever by just moving the Washington monument six inches in any direction.

Funny thing is in a couple of generations this nut will not be remembered, nor will any of you! But the Roman Catholic Church will still be going strong as it has for 2000 years.

Remeber the old graffiti?

God is dead, Nieschte.
Nieschte is dead, God.

>>DNA of a transubstantiated communion wafer

>>One can do many things to a Twinkie (including deep frying them as they do in Vegas), but one cannot draw DNA from them.

Are you saying that Christians believe that the symbolic taking of a communion wafer, unleavened bread, etc has DNA in it?

Mr. Mark...you are creating a spin zone here. You say you cant get DNA from a twinkie..on the same hand, you cant get one from a symbol either. Duh.

Do you actually think you were making a point here?

Pretty poor attempt, I would have to say.

Keep on schmoozin'

>>With that in mind, I'll take your words as a swipe at my intelligence. I'll leave to to others to determine whether your barbs are accurate or not, while pointing out that your words are a perfect example of Xian love and charity (I'm not being sarcastic here. I expect no more from the Xians, even as I am more often disappointed to receive even less.).

And I will take your words as a swipe against the intelligence of millions who believe there is a Creator God of the universe.

Accurate barbs? Moi?....and yours are 'barb-less'?...Huh, what a concept. Dont believe it for a moment.

You take an old psychology trick of 'no love and charity' when the point is to throw your brand of the actual sarcasm back at ya. In other words ...you can dish it out, but you cant take it. C'mon there, Mr Mark...you think that you are the only one who can be sarcastic and get away with it? Reminds me of bullies at school. Tisk tisk.

Why are you even commenting on a thread of subjects that you seem to abhor? Do you really think you are going to see people that sincerely believe they are not an accident of fate see your way? If so...Now, thats comical.

Tell us of all the accidents of fate that you have conjured up in your time alloted here on this earth?

You are a human being. We all are. Im sure you are a successful person in your line of work and well respected in many regards. But I would have to say your views of life and its purpose are very simple minded and have no substance whatsoever.

Lets put it in simple terms. Jesus never taught reincarnation in any way shape or form. So for this guy to say he is Christ incarnate, he would make Christ a liar and make his own deluded self less respectable.

Reasonable.

But then again, substitute ‘three gods in one’ and ‘human sacrifice’ for reincarnation, you have equally absurd claims.

Lets put it in simple terms. Jesus never taught three gods in one in any way shape or form. So for any one who claims such an absurdity is deluded.

Lets put it in simple terms. Jesus never taught human sacrifice as necessary for atonement in one in any way shape or form. So for any one who claims such an absurdity is deluded.

Dear Mr. Karrusso

Why are you so angry? Being a Christian doesn't seem to be doing you any good.

Dear Schmoozealert -

While I appreciate your attempt at humor, that's all it was - an attempt, and not a successful one at that.

Most humor has a grain of truth in it, which is why it resonates. Your "comparable argument" is nothing of the kind for the following reasons:

1. I am not claiming to be the reincarnation of a godman. That's the claim of Mr Torop.

2. Neither you nor I are averring that a Twinkie (and, more specifically, its delicious creme center) can be transubstantiated into a human body that would allow one to draw a DNA sample for comparison. It's the Catholic Church that holds that communion wafers and wine are transubstantiated into the actual body and blood of Jesus who was (supposedly) a living human being. Ergo - if one is to believe RCC dogma on transubstantiation - his DNA should be present in the communion host.

One can do many things to a Twinkie (including deep frying them as they do in Vegas), but one cannot draw DNA from them. On the other hand, a Twinkie is a very real thing. Too real, if the number of obese Americans is any indication. Sadly (or, happily), the same reality can't be extended to god and those who claim to be reincarnations of gods.

Now, there's a concept we can all get behind: prove the truth of god's existence to the same level of proof that a Twinkie provides for its existence.

3. Perhaps you don't realize that the same DNA is present in saliva as it is in brain cells. Ergo, there's no reason to compare brain cells when there is a simple non-intrusive method available for gathering DNA evidence.

With that in mind, I'll take your words as a swipe at my intelligence. I'll leave to to others to determine whether your barbs are accurate or not, while pointing out that your words are a perfect example of Xian love and charity (I'm not being sarcastic here. I expect no more from the Xians, even as I am more often disappointed to receive even less.).

Dear Kerusso -

You are entitled to your impressions of me, though I disagree strongly with your characterization.

I am hardly an angry person, especially in matters of religion. Truth be told, I'd have a difficult time whipping up anger towards religion as there are more-pressing issues that deserve my anger and that of others (the criminality of the bush administration, for example).

I would say that you are confusing frustration with anger. I do admit to being quite frustrated with the religionist's ability to compartmentalize reality and fantasy, though being a former religionist myself, I understand where they're coming from.

Perhaps I project my own experience as a religionist on others, and that would be wrong as my experience was to present circular arguments from authority, to invent history where none existed, to deny scientific and historical evidence that put the lie to my circular arguments on the grounds that I hadn't heard about it (so how could it possibly be true?), and to brandish old Pascal's infamous wager as a budget-rate rejoinder when my arguments disintegrated before my eyes. One cannot underestimate the smug satisfaction I drew from Pascal's "narny, narny, you're going to hell and I'm not" bromide.

Thankfully, religious arguments have moved beyond such trivial defenses since the mid-1970s...right?

As far as your rewrite of the history of Xianity it goes, well, it's not worth much. You regurgitate many of the common myths about the "explosion" of Xianity in the first century while offering the usual whole-cloth myths of the Xian tradition as "proof." Get thee to a history book, my friend, and by that, I don't mean the Bible.

What evidence would I accept as proof of god's existence? I would imagine that it would be on the level of proof that Kerusso would accept as proof that Islam is the one true religion. But I can set the bar even lower if needs must - I know that I'll most likely be using the bathroom during the day. If you can offer me proof of god's existence that is as simple, as real and as tangible as my knowledge that I'll be using the bathroom today, then I'll think about it.

There is no proof whatsoever for the "truth of Xianity," let alone an overabundance. Perhaps Kerusso needs to look up the words "proof" and "truth" in his dictionary. That would give us a chance to discuss these things by first agreeing on what words actually mean, rather than inventing new definitions for words to advance some fantastic argument.

Finally, I'd pay real money if the Xians would stop with the "atheists think they're the center of the universe" BS. It's not the atheists who imagine that the entire cosmos was designed billions of years ago for the express purpose of allowing Kerusso and ilk to have an eternal personal relationship with an omni-present, omni-powerful god. It's not the atheists who imagine that of the billions of humans and trillions of life forms that have occupied this tiny planet in a small solar system in a remote corner of a relatively insignificant galaxy, that THEY and THEY ALONE (and, more importantly, adherents of their religion, nay, their religious SECT alone) are the ones chosen by an eternal god to live forever in heaven, while the vast majority of their fellow humans are condemned to eternal suffering, even as all non-human life on the planet has been and is slated for eventual extinction.

Who is it again who thinks they're the center of creation?

Thanks for the chat.

>>Why beat around the rhetorical bush when you can prove scientifically whether this guy is or isn't the reincarnated Jesus?

>>A simple comparison of his DNA with the DNA of a transubstantiated communion wafer should do the trick.

Comparable argument:

Why should we all beat around the rhetorical bush to decide wether Mr. Mark is real or not.

A simple comparison of his DNA (or perhaps brain cells?) to the central portion of a twinkie should do the trick.

:-O

Lets put it in simple terms. Jesus never taught reincarnation in any way shape or form. So for this guy to say he is Christ incarnate, he would make Christ a liar and make his own deluded self less respectable. Why do you give attention to these guys? Why don't you expose the faulty beliefs of mainstream religions?

People speak of rumor and innuendo from 2000 years ago as though it were the absolute infallible truth. What nonsense!

The absence of religion is the true road to salvation......

test

And of course the Obfuscating Jihadist again failed to address the flaws in her Sunni vision of Islam i.e.

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That being a Sunni she is superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed

Jihadist: "The original Jesus did not have a confrontation with Caesar in Rome ... only a representative of Rome in Pilate in Jerusalem. So, why with Putin the Caesar of the Russian Empire?"

Yep. And Prof. Crossan's memory of scripture is apparently roughly on par with Vissarion's memory of his alleged previous incarnation.

Jesus went to Jerusalem specifically to confront the Temple priests and the Jewish theocratic leaders. Pilate's role was purely peripheral. Jesus' core challenge was aimed directly at the religious establishment of his time and place: "You whitewashed sepulchers!"

So there's no call for Vissarion to confront Putin -- and frankly, with his simple, straightforward, unimpeachable message of peace, respect, tolerance and harmony, he's already confronting the religious establisment of THIS day.

Hi, Jihadist,

I absolutely love your replies to Confused the 'Christian' Now Inebriated. Keep 'em up.

Arminius

Oh Obfuscating Jihadist,

Distract, distract and distract again and again and still no commentary about the basic flaws of Islam!!!

With respect to Jesus_

Jesus was a poor, simply-human, preacher man whose life was embellished by the gospel and epistle authors. The embellishments included miracles, healings, and an elevation to deity requiring a physical resurrection. The con men as noted previously therefore were the "biographers" of said Jesus.

But since you read all those books written about the historic Jesus, you knew this already.

And of course Muslims do not believe that Mohammed was incarnated but they treat him like he was.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated stated:

"This Siberian con man should have declared himself the new Jesus and new Mohammed incarnated into one."

Sorry pussycat. Muslims don't have that belief in the reincarnation of Jesus or the Prophet or anyone else or in the Trinity of God.

....and by the way, in your first post here, you stated:

"No, he is a fraud and charlatan akin to con men who use fortune telling spiels. No different than the religious con prophets in the fictional OT, Mohammed's "Gabe-fest" in the koran, the Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John fortune telling/embellishments of the NT and the "Mormon-con" of Joseph Smith."

One can't, but help notice that you missed out Jesus in your list of "frauds", "charlatans" and "conmen."

I take it that you do believe what is performed by Jesus are miracles and not charlatanship? If there is such a word.

Kerusso:

Beliefs come in chains, evolve. There is a first belief followed by another and still another and on and on. Then beliefs, dozens of them, split and continue to grow like cracks in glass. But the crack in the glass begins as a single point where the stone first struck.

All three great faiths begin as a single point, Moses making a deal with a 'believed' supernatural being that lives in fire. As the stone dies not strike the glass at a single point alone the greatest number of fishers, (of men) occur near the first point of impact.

The burning bush tale is the first place in the Bible where God can be written into history. Yes, God created the world but no one was there to witness it. Same is true for all between there and Moses --garden of eden, Noah and the arc, tower of babble etc.

All faith is that the being in the burning bush was God. Sacred scriptures clearly say that was the Devil, Lucifer. Take a look as the chaos of religion and explain how it could have possibly been God. OK, so it was a fairy tale BKA standard Greek mythology.

Bottom line -- all faith is in either the Devil or fairy tales. Take your pick. The Devil makes most sense given inquisitions, jihad etc.

The version of history at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul might be so.

The Moses story is the beginning belief point of all three faiths with their many cracks upon cracks. That story needs a little more attention and a lot less given to the son of the being in the burning bush.

Kerusso:

I am well acquainted with Mr Mark, and have had meaningful discussions with him before. For some reason, today he his not his usual reasoned self.

You and I, Kerusso, though both Christian, differ in many respects. As I see it, the Bible in itself proves little so far as history goes. Well, that I can handle. My framework of belief seems to be somewhat different from yours. NOT a criticism, an observation. I come from a different direction. I don't want to open a can of worms here, just want you to know that we differ.

With respect, and God bless,

Arminius

This Siberian con man should have declared himself the new Jesus and new Mohammed incarnated into one. Or maybe Jesus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith for a new trinity? Hmmm, the Obfuscating Jihadist then would have to deal with old Mo up front and personal. Since she never does that, we reiterate her true thinking about the warmongering, long dead and "stenchifying" Arab and his hallucinogen-based religion.

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That being a Sunni she is superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Arminius,

You've met our resident "I'll believe anything if its not the Bible or science" angry agnostic, Mr. Mark.

He is painfully aware of the overabundance of evidence for the truth of Christianity, and he hates it; he hates because it doesn't have Mr. Mark at the center of it.

How much proof does someone need? Ask the next 'atheist' you meet, "What would be a valid evidence for God in your opinion?" They don't have one, there is no valid evidence for them to believe, because they hate God.

For what it's worth, the Bible is the most reliable book in antiquity, it testifies by 40 authors over 1700 years to Jesus Christ, every Chapter from Genesis to Revelation talks about him. Sixty-six books directly relating to Jesus Christ is plenty of evidence in my opinion.

But if that's not enough, look at the EXPLOSION of Christianity in the first century. Read Acts 2:9-11 and ask yourself, do we have evidence of Christianity in 1st century Crete? Cappadocia? Egypt? India? Rome? Spain? Scotland? One minute, there was no such thing as a religion based on God manifest in the flesh to take away the sins of the world, and the next minute it took over the civilized world.

When Mark asks for proof, I offer him creation, conscience, conversion, and history. I don't even have to mention the Bible to prove God and Christianity.

But it is futile to argue with Mark, because the light has come into the world, and the darkness understood it not. Mr. Mark loves the darkness. If you read his posts with that hermeneutic, he will make much more sense to you.

Truly, he'll believe anything if it's not the Bible or science.

Mr. JD Crossan :)

Welcome back! In the spirit of your essay here on Vissarion.....

Perhaps we should consider that it is almost 2000 years since the original Jesus was on earth.

In those days, the Roman Empire is the superpower and ancient Israel is as backwater as Siberia is.

Russia, formerly Soviet Union, is still a power and Moscow is as far to the original Jesus as Rome is to the original Jesus.

The Roman Empire has no nukes, but Russia has. There was not TV, radio, satellites, Internet etc during the time of the original Jesus in ancient Israel, but for the reincarnated Jesus in contemporary Siberia, well, he has to adust his messianic strategy to this age and day.

Perhaps the reincarnated Jesus Christ has no memories of that first incarnation, because, after all, this is a reincarnation - a new a revised version perhaps like an old software be replaced by a new and better one to fit it with the world so different from 2,000 years ago.

Hence, in this reincarnation, a new strategy to have a headquarters, a focus point, and ops centre to see who will come rather than wasting time going door to door. People who come to you freely and voluntarily are more committed and loyal, no?

Of course it makes perfect sense in this reincarnation to go to a place in the wilderness far from the eyes of the birds in the sky (spy satellites) and out of the range of other electronic devises to brainstorm and strategise on how to got to Moscow (Rome of old).

The original Jesus did not have a confrontation with Ceasar in Rome of the Roman Empire, only a representative of Rome in Pilate in Jerusalem. So, why with Putin the Ceasar of the Russian Empire? Is there a local governor of Siberia where Vissarion can deliberately confront?

Yes, "Vissarion, you're no Jesus Christ", but he certainly is inspired by the original Christ and know the power of using his name as a draw to him.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Mr Mark,

I suspected that you were quite aware that transubstantiation is purely an RC thing.

I am quite aware of the lack of any direct proof of the historical existence of Jesus. It does not particularly bother me, but it does intrigue me, since I have a deep interest in history. Of course, now is the time to bring up the greatly amusing idea that Socrates never really existed. Totally useless, but fun. I think we may have been over that before.

Oh yeah, I think Gaby was tongue-in-cheek about the appearance of Jesus. Blue eyes in a jew in the Levant 2000 years ago? Not a chance.

Arminius

There is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for any of his contemporaries.

Mr. Markm

You crack me up!

Vissarion = Russian for "David Koresh".

Dear Arminius -

I realize that only the RCC advances the dogma of transubstantiation, but that's my point, isn't it?

What is "true" revelation? That of transubstantiation, of limbo, of virgin birth, of resurrection, of an eternal heaven and hell, of Mormonism, of Satanism, of Baptist-ism? It's all dogma and all of it is man-created fantasy.

There is AS MUCH PROOF available to show that this latest Jesus is Jesus as there was to prove that the first Jesus even existed, which is to say, none.

Dear Gaby -

Modern scholars would dispute you on this guy looking like Jesus. I think most Biblical scholars now point to a picture of Jerry Stiller as being a closer likeness of Jesus than the saccharine efforts of the religious artists...and I doubt that anyone 2,000 years old would look as good as Sergei Torop, be they Jew or gentile.

Oh, come on now! He even looks like Jesus, does he not? Just like in the movies, long hair, beard, blue eyes, charismatic, etc. Exactly how a 2000 year old Jew would have looked.

Jesus has already come back and I'm still trying to decide if that was God in the burning bush. Help me! Won't sombody please help me!

Maybe this fellow can tell us all about being fathered by a ball of fire? Or was that just a dirty old man on fire with the fire that burns but does not consume?

Details at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Maybe hoax buster gang can help us identify the real Jesus.

Mr Mark,

All Protestant Christians reject transubstantiation. True, it is RC dogma, put forth by one of the bishops of Rome. But I would bet a bucket of money that most RC's don't buy into it either.

Arminius

No, he is a fraud and charlatan akin to con men who use fortune telling spiels. No different than the religious con prophets in the fictional OT, Mohammed's "Gabe-fest" in the koran, the Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John fortune telling/embellishments of the NT and the "Mormon-con" of Joseph Smith.

Mr Mark,

A terrific idea!

test

Why beat around the rhetorical bush when you can prove scientifically whether this guy is or isn't the reincarnated Jesus?

A simple comparison of his DNA with the DNA of a transubstantiated communion wafer should do the trick.

;)

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

The first coming of Christ was discernable by his adherence to his submission to the superiority of God the Father.

There is an EASY way to tell a true prophet by the main character of their message. Is it them, or God? Is it, "Look at me! I'm Jesus", or "Pay attention to me, I speak for God", or "We've elected a prophet to speak for us."? Or is it "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" and "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father."

Does the prophet claim to be the end-all of prophets? Or does he build on old teaching. "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

There is one surefire way to tell if this antichrist is actually Christ: crucify him. Whether or not Vissarion raises himself from the dead will be the determining factor. But he won't, because God the Son died once for the sins of the world and cannot be crucified again (although the Catholic Church sure tries), because he rose to be exalted on the right hand of the Father.

The return of Christ is not going to be any small event. It will be preceded by a great meteorite crashing into the earth, killing much of the population, followed by plague and pestilence, the rapture of Christians, a great new generation of Christians being raised up by the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, and ultimately the sky will open, and behold, a white horse, and his name that sits upon him will be called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he will judge and make war.

Behind him, the armies of Heaven will follow, and nations will be struck down, the grapes of wrath will be pressed out, and those that are not part of the family of God will drink the wrath of God's fury.

But this scene is yet to come. There is still time to repent and believe. God is patient, but his righteous indignation abides upon you for your transgressions. When you sin, you sin against God, and God alone. He has kept an account of any lies you have told, and anything you have stolen, no matter how small. He counts hatred as murder, and lust as adultery. Every time you have blasphemed his holy name, you have declared war on God and tempted him to extinguish your life.

But here is love, not that you loved God, but that he loved you, he sent his only begotten son to be the propitiation for your sins. He was tried on the charge of claiming to be God, and beaten beyond human semblance in your place. The cup of God's wrath abides on you, but on the cross, Jesus Christ drank every last drop of this wrath and it pleased the Father that he did, because in this, you can be forgiven and God will be glorified for his patience, mercy, and grace.

In order to receive this forgiveness, God commands that you repent of your sins and place your full trust in him to save you. You will be born again and thus will be allowed to see and enter the kingdom of God.

Then, if you are around on the glorious and terrifying day when Christ actually does come back, you will catch the first elevator to Heaven and rejoice as God stamps iniquity from the Earth forever. If you hear this offer and reject it, do not be surprised when you are the one getting stomped.