Kingdom Warriors’ bullshit revisited

I sent the following to Emmanuel, the owner of Kingdom Warriors dot com.

Hey Emmanuel,

I read your site and checked out the first video. I have to say what you’re doing is at least irresponsible if not outright dangerous.

To claim that all that people need to overcome illness, fatal or otherwise, is to invoke Jesus’ name you know is patently false. Religious and irreligious die all the time from disease even if they do invoke Jesus’ name. If it really were that simple, anyone who ever called himself a Christian would never die of disease.

Now I’ll move onto the theological implications. You have no evidence that a god, Jesus, or the devil exist, nor of the exact nature of their relationship even if they did. Yes, you can quote Bible verses as you are clearly wont to do, but you must be aware that every faith and belief system has a holy book, they can’t all be right, and so that something is written, even by someone long ago, does not equal evidence of the written word’s validity.

But let’s assume that the written word is valid. This still raises plenty of questions. If your god is omnipotent, he has the power to rid the world of disease. That he hasn’t speaks either to his impotence or his disinterest. Let’s go by what you claim. The devil creates disease. Why does this omnipotent god then not stop the devil? Any way you cut it, what you say flies in the face of proven medical science.

From your videos that I’ve seen, you seem like a decent, concerned, and sincere person. It’s a shame, then, that you choose to put your energy into preaching such obvious falsehoods. If you must spout hogwash, you could at least curtail it by preaching that people seek proper medical care in addition to any religious activity they (futilely) engage in.

24 Responses to “Kingdom Warriors’ bullshit revisited”

  1. trainwreck Says:

    I would agree with you that advertising that invoking Jesus’ name will suddenly cure all is a complete pipedream.

    As to the theological… did you come up with that stuff all on your own? No wait… that is the same pathetic set of arguments that every single light weight atheist has beem using for the last 1000 years.

    You have no more evidence that everything is a great big cosmic mistake than a Christian does for believing everything has a purpose. You are so completely convinced that you are right that you will not even consider the possibility that you are wrong. That would make you a religious fundamentalist.

    I love guys like you. You think you are so brilliant yet are to busy patting yourselves on the back to realize that your own “faith” (everyone has to believe something) does not stand up to same scrutiny that you use to argue against there being a God.

    No one can prove or disprove a personal God. No one can prove or disprove that everything is a great big cosmic mistake. To delude yourself that you are somehow more intelligent than those of a different faith than you just confirms the delusion.

    Futhermore, there is far more eveidence of a historical Jesus (Yeshua) than there is for much of the Greek history taught in schools as fact. If you actually take the time to do some real research instead of regurgitating tired old arguments you would realize that you don’t know nearly as much as you think you know.

    Grow up cupcake. Time to put on your big girl panties and learn how to read something a bit more intellectual than Sam Harris.

  2. antonahill Says:

    Hey ADHD,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Atheist Asshole.

    >As to the theological… did you come up with that stuff all on your own? No wait… that is the same pathetic set of arguments that every single light weight atheist has beem using for the last 1000 years.

    Ah, sarcasm. I definitely love a good dose. “Pathetic” and “light weight” don’t equal wrong. And actually, I think the arguments have existed for far more than 1,000 years. More like 3,000. Why so long? Because there’s no reason to believe any religious hogwash.

    >You have no more evidence that everything is a great big cosmic mistake than a Christian does for believing everything has a purpose.

    I never said it was a mistake. I’ve said over and over I don’t know how the universe came to be. But, unlike the religious, I don’t claim to know.

    > You are so completely convinced that you are right that you will not even consider the possibility that you are wrong. That would make you a religious fundamentalist.

    My beliefs are based on facts. The second I have proof that they’re wrong, I change them. I don’t know if black holes are real or not. But I’m not trying to teach children that they are or trying to tell you where to put your genitals based on my ridiculous black hole bullshit.

    >I love guys like you. You think you are so brilliant yet are to busy patting yourselves on the back to realize that your own “faith” (everyone has to believe something) does not stand up to same scrutiny that you use to argue against there being a God.

    Faith is belief in something without evidence or in the face of opposing evidence. Belief is based on reason. I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow because it rose yesterday. I believe it will not turn into a giant, chocolate bunny because I have no reason to.

    What scrutiny?? Bring it!

    >No one can prove or disprove a personal God.

    The burden of proof lies on the assertion. No one can prove or disprove the existence of leprechauns either, but I bet you’re not agnostic about those.

    I don’t know what the hell you mean by “personal.”

    > No one can prove or disprove that everything is a great big cosmic mistake.

    Nobody ever said it was a mistake.

    >To delude yourself that you are somehow more intelligent than those of a different faith than you just confirms the delusion.

    I never said anything about my intelligence on its own merits or relative to anyone else’s.

    >Futhermore, there is far more eveidence of a historical Jesus (Yeshua) than there is for much of the Greek history taught in schools as fact.

    Name it! Point out one independently verifiable fact of Jesus’ existence. Just one. I already know about Josephus’ references. That’s general and not independently verifiable.

    I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about with Greek history being taught in schools. No one ever told me Zeus was real.

    >If you actually take the time to do some real research instead of regurgitating tired old arguments you would realize that you don’t know nearly as much as you think you know.

    I never claimed to know that which you claim I claimed to have known. Just because arguments are “old” doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

    I’m not equipped to go on an independently funded archaeological dig in Israel solely to try to find evidence of Jesus’ existence. Therefore, I’m forced to rely on other evidence. In my research, I’ve found none. Once I do, I will happily admit I was wrong.

    >Grow up cupcake. Time to put on your big girl panties and learn how to read something a bit more intellectual than Sam Harris.

    Ouch. Cupcake. Man, I’ve heard some really nasty insults before, but to be called a baked good, shit, I may not be able to sleep tonight. Oo, and to question my masculinity. That really stings. Gonna call me gay next? Or fat? What is it with ad hominems? The second I have the audacity to question a baseless claim or call it crap automatically necessitates attacking me? Who truly needs to ditch the tighty whities?

    If you’re up to an actual discussion, like to scrutinize me, awesome, but if you’re gonna be a douche solely for the sake of being a douche, do all of us rational folks a favor, don’t vote and go fuck yourself.

  3. trainwreck Says:

    I thought I was having an actual discussion I just did my best to match the rude belittling tone you use in all of your posts. I mean you call your blog, atheist asshole… what the hell did you expect.

    You seem to be comfortable being a “douche” so I figured “when in Rome”.

    I would love to hear some of those “facts” you base your beliefs on.

    Zeus was part of Greek mythology. Greek history would include people like Alexander the Great.

    Actually the oldest’s copies of the the New Testament gospels, Paul’s authentic letters etc are all more than sufficient as independent accounts of Jesus’s existance. The Bible as we know it today was not written as a single book. It was assembled from multiple writtings some of which we have copies of that are dated less than 200 years from Jesus death. As the vast majority of history that is considered fact by most of society has far less actual documentation than that I would say it is pretty trustworthy. I do not know of any credible main stream scholars who deny the existance of Jesus.

    “The burden of proof lies on the assertion. No one can prove or disprove the existence of leprechauns either, but I bet you’re not agnostic about those.”

    Unfortunately for you I have not tried to prove God exists to you. You however have made your opinion widely known that there is no God. Prove it. Let’s see those facts.

    “Faith is belief in something without evidence or in the face of opposing evidence. Belief is based on reason. I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow because it rose yesterday. I believe it will not turn into a giant, chocolate bunny because I have no reason to.”

    Where did you get these definitions? Nevermind…. So please provide me with your evidence that there is no God. I already said no one can prove there is a God (personal would mean a relationship with a God that gives a crap about us individualy). Hell even Dawkins acknowledges the possibility of a Higher Power. Lets see the things that seperates your belief from faith.

  4. antonahill Says:

    Hey ADHD,

    Here we go!

    >I thought I was having an actual discussion I just did my best to match the rude belittling tone you use in all of your posts. I mean you call your blog, atheist asshole… what the hell did you expect.

    I’ve not yet used an ad hominem. I viciously attack people’s beliefs and I’ve given my reasons why.

    >I would love to hear some of those “facts” you base your beliefs on.

    I’ll give you one. I believe the earth is older than 5,700 years because I’ve seen archaeological, astronomical, and linguistic evidence that proves such.

    Beyond that, feel free to ask me specific questions.

    >Zeus was part of Greek mythology. Greek history would include people like Alexander the Great.

    I wasn’t sure whether you were counting history as history or myth as history. As for Alex, I’m not sure that he historically existed. My understanding of the subject is that there are countless records Greek and otherwise that detail him, but beyond that, I’m Alexander-agnostic.

    I’ve heard similar things about Shakespeare, Socrates, Julius Caesar, and the George Washington cherry tree story. The fact, though, is we have the plays, the philosophy, the conquests, and the corpse. Whether every detail was true is ultimately irrelevant. That is until legislation is based on it.

    >Actually the oldest’s copies of the the New Testament gospels, Paul’s authentic letters etc are all more than sufficient as independent accounts of Jesus’s existance.

    (This is a long conversation I’m happy to have privately over e-mail, but I’ll give it an initial stab.)

    Except that it is widely known that none are 1st-hand eyewitness accounts.

    Second, it’s also widely known that the different gospels tell the tale differently.

    Third, just because someone claims something doesn’t mean it’s true. I can write a story about Bob the Almighty. Doesn’t make him or his Almightyness real.

    Fourth, you’re ignoring the reality that all holy books have been translated and edited to fit claims, prophecies, and kings’ whims.

    Moreover, I’ve seen the 1st pages of the Book of Mormon that claim that Joseph Smith and his followers all swore they saw the golden tablets. Doesn’t mean it happened.

    If you choose to take Paul’s supposed “authentic” letters as verifiable accounts, I’d hate to have you as a witness in a murder trial. “Some guy I’ve never seen says he’s innocent! He must be! He said it! Look, I wrote it down!”

    > The Bible as we know it today was not written as a single book. It was assembled from multiple writtings some of which we have copies of that are dated less than 200 years from Jesus death. As the vast majority of history that is considered fact by most of society has far less actual documentation than that I would say it is pretty trustworthy.

    So because something is documented makes it real? The Norse sagas and Mayan myths are very well documented. Doesn’t make them real. And I would say that much of what we collectively call “history” isn’t necessarily true. George “cherry tree” Washington for example.

    >I do not know of any credible main stream scholars who deny the existance of Jesus.

    Seriously?? An appeal to authority? I guess you’ve made an appeal to popularity, an appeal to history, and other fallacies, so this one shouldn’t be a surprise.

    Just because mainstream scholars haven’t proved him not to exist doesn’t mean he did. Mainstream scholars haven’t disproved the existence of Heracles, do you believe him to be an historical figure as well?

    >Unfortunately for you I have not tried to prove God exists to you. You however have made your opinion widely known that there is no God. Prove it. Let’s see those facts.

    I can’t disprove a negative. Prove to me that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. The assertion is a god does exist. There is no proof. The assertion is an Easter Bunny exists. There is no proof of that either. And yet we’re not discussing the relative merits of Easter Bunny existence, are we?

    >Where did you get these definitions? Nevermind….

    Dictionary.com definition #2 of “faith.” That mainstream enough for you?

    >So please provide me with your evidence that there is no God.

    I can’t prove a negative.

    >I already said no one can prove there is a God (personal would mean a relationship with a God that gives a crap about us individualy). Hell even Dawkins acknowledges the possibility of a Higher Power. Lets see the things that seperates your belief from faith.

    I already told you. I believe that there is no god for I see no reason to. The assertion is that there’s a god, for which there is no proof. I also believe there are no pink unicorns. I assume you agree with me on that. And yet you don’t call my lack of pink unicorn belief “faith.”

    It’s true that any belief is ultimately just a belief. The question is how much evidence is there to support any belief? If we are to afford any belief merit just because someone conceived of it, that necessitates that we afford all beliefs merit. And yet we don’t.

    The sun shall rise again… there’s evidence.

    Black holes exist… there’s some evidence about which we don’t have a full understanding.

    A god exists. No evidence.

  5. trainwreck Says:

    This is fun. Sorry I have been crazy busy over the last few days. I will carry on our coversation (hopefully complete with all the entertaining but meaningless insults) in a few days when things settle down a bit for me. Hopefully you will not give up even when you realize you came unarmed to a battle of the wills. (:-P

    Cheers

  6. antonahill Says:

    Unarmed. That’s funny. Not really “ha ha” funny, but funny nonetheless. Just come up with something better than “cupcake.”

    ‘Til then, Train.

  7. trainwreck Says:

    Why? Cupcake seemed to piss you off.

    Okay. How about Cream Puff?

  8. antonahill Says:

    Only in the fact that it wasn’t that interesting. I mean, seriously, if you’re gonna insult a total stranger, at least pick something that might be offensive. I’m neither a 13-year-old boy, nor a closeted gay man, so either questioning my masculinity or sexual orientation does nothing.

  9. trainwreck Says:

    you protest to much… still coming to terms with your true identity?

  10. antonahill Says:

    I’m not protesting to much, yet I might be protesting too much. Nope. I’ve already arrived at all terms.

  11. fromRussiaWithLove Says:

    people doubted Jesus when he did miracles right in front of their eyes! it happened 2000 years ago happening now and will be happening until He comes!
    one of my friend said, you beleive in God but later (after death) find out that God doesnt exist then you lose nothing…you refuse to believe in God and later find yourself wrong..then you lose everything

    • Anton A. Hill Says:

      Hey FromRussia,

      Thanks for dropping by. Let me address a couple of your points.

      “people doubted Jesus when he did miracles right in front of their eyes!”

      This has never been demonstrated. You can’t prove that 1. Jesus existed 2. he performed miracles or 3. that anyone witnessed them. If you believe the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts, then I have to ask if you believe the Odyssey to be literally true or Grimm’s Fairy Tales, and if not, why not? Both contain historical facts. Both take place in real places. Both bear witness to people and events.

      “it happened 2000 years ago happening now and will be happening until He comes!”

      How do you know it happened 2000 years ago? How do you mean it’s happening now? Where’s Jesus and where are the miracles? What do you mean it will be happening until he comes? How do you know this? How do you know he’s coming?

      “one of my friend said, you beleive in God but later (after death) find out that God doesnt exist then you lose nothing…you refuse to believe in God and later find yourself wrong..then you lose everything”

      Your friend is an idiot. What your friend is suggesting is Okham’s Razor. But this argument is built on false premises and logical fallacy. Let me explain.

      1. If one believes in God, but God doesn’t exist, one has indeed lost time, energy, perhaps fear, guilt, and who knows what else? I personally wouldn’t want to waste my time and energy believing in something that I had no evidence for. I’ve done so before and it was time and energy I could’ve spent on more useful and enjoyable pursuits.

      2. By saying “refuse to believe in God”, you seem to suggest that I know He’s real, but am simply being stubborn. This isn’t the case. I did believe in God, but found 1. no answers to the questions I had about Him and his supposed role in the universe and 2. encountered zero evidence of the claims made about Him. Would you say I “refuse” to believe in Zeus?

      3. By saying “then you lose everything”, you assert an undemonstrated premise. What is your evidence that I would lose anything? What is your evidence that your brand of theology is true and no other is? Why do you (presumably) believe in the Abrahamic God and not Zeus?

      The main fallacy in O’s R is a false dichotomy. It suggests that there is either a (punishing) god or there isn’t. But the existence of a god, punishing or not, can’t be demonstrated. If I were to base my life on the fear of retribution of every single god, force, or notion I potentially have to fear, I’d never leave the house. Some things, like flying through the windshield at a sudden stop, are worth fearing. I wear a seatbelt. Other things, like being struck by lightning, are not worth fearing. I perpetually expose myself to open areas in which I could potentially be struck by lightning because the likelihood I actually will is nil.

      If, FromRussia, you have any evidence of your claims and therefore reasons why I should take the just-in-case side of Okham’s Razor, then please drop them on me. If not, then I suggest you ask yourself why you fear the lightning that most likely will never strike you.

      • Anton A. Hill Says:

        Oops. I got this completely wrong. I kept saying “Okham’s Razor” when I meant to say “Pascal’s Wager.” D’oh!

  12. atheists cause war not religion!

    • Anton A. Hill Says:

      Hi Steven,

      I agree. People start wars, not social constructs. I don’t think I’ve ever made the opposite claim. Some social constructs, however, certainly make war more justifiable whereas atheism doesn’t if for no other reason than atheism says nothing one way or the other on war.

      Best,

      Anton.

  13. @Anton A. Hill
    I don’t know if you wrote this; I’ll assume you are the one to have written this, though, b/c you respond to everyone who comments.
    No, any “Christian” you may encounter cannot invoke the name of Jesus and make Healings/miracles happen. But, this is only b/c many “Christians” are only “Christian” by profession. You will know a tree by it’s fruits and to be a Christian, you have to have an actual relationship with Christ (through the Holy Spirit), if you want to take up the mantle and do the things Christ did. Most Christians aren’t living the way they should, and so, they’re not actually following Christ, nor do they have an actual relationship with Him. So, please, don’t tell me, “well, I know a bunch of Christians and they don’t/can’t do this or that.” Claiming one’s a Christian and actually being a Christian are vastly different things and unfortunately, the former, is exorbitantly more prevalent.
    If you want proof, here, watch all of these:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln4HcWH-lUM






    Now, you can watch all of these things and remain in incredulity; but on the day of Judgment, don’t tell GOD you’ve never seen any proof.
    Then, watch this video which explains why we don’t see the things that Jesus did from his era very often in our contemporary society:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsY2CKBzio

    • Hi Divad,

      I wrote it. So how do I tell if someone who says he’s a “Christian” has an actual relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit? The only reason I say things like “I know a bunch of Christians…” is because I see no means of evaluating their relationship with Christ other than their claims thereof.

      I’m not sure what you mean by “proof.” I don’t have the time to watch all those. Please pick your top two favorites.

      Thanks!

      Anton.

      • lol, ok, well, I suggest that you watch all of them (even if you have to watch them 1 per day.) I would encourage you to definitely watch the last video because it’s primarily and explanation of why you don’t see what you’re about to see, often. There are two that are both like 3 mins, each, so I definitely think that you can at least manage to watch those. The 2nd one and the 5th one, are both around 3 mins long. If you want my personal favorites among the more “time consuming” ones, I’d tell you to watch the 1st video and the third. Again, if you TRULY don’t have the time to watch them, I guess it can’t be helped, but, again, you’ve been offered “proof,” so, if you really are interested, I assume that you could make time for what you want to know/engage in. Really, excluding the last video, watching the others wouldn’t even take up an hr of your time (46 mins and 50 secs, to be exact.) So, if you TRULY don’t have time, I suggest the ones I listed above, but if you can make time, I suggest you watch all of them.
        “I see no means of evaluating their relationship with Christ other than their claims thereof.”
        It’s funny you say that because, really, there is no way (and I’ll explain.) A Christian is a person who seeks to emulate Christ. So, there are many people who profess to be Christian (and MANY who only affiliate b/c of their parents), but you know a tree by it’s fruits. If that person is mean, lewd/crude, profane, into drugs, disrespectful, etc (there, of course, are other traits and actions that you can go by but those are the only ones that came to mind, at present…if you want the rest, read the Bible) then you can pretty much assume that that person is only Christian by profession. So, if a person’s outward nature is exhibiting behaviors that you would think to yourself and say, “hey, that’s not Christ-like,” then it’s reasonable to assume they aren’t what/who they claim to be. But, even then, you still can’t know for certain whether a person is truly a Christian. This is because, to ascertain whether a person truly is Christian/has a relationship with Christ, not only would you have to know their public life, but you’d also have to know their private. That person’s outward character could be entirely a facade, and when they go home (or to the confines of their rooms) where no one is watching (but GOD), they could be acting completely contrary to how they act in public. So, really, it’s impossible to know for certain whether a person is really Christian. lol, you can narrow it down, but you can never really know for sure. Just take it this way: If a person is outwardly exhibiting Christ-like behavior, you can be 50% sure that that person is Christian. The other 50% is very hard, if not impossible, to observe and therefore, you can never know 100%. But, if a person is outwardly exuding behaviors that are “un-Christlike,” then you can probably safely assume that that person is 100% not a Christian. There are a plethora of professing Christians who aren’t truly Christian (and, this is due to the tampering of the Gospel by Churches.) Churches lead everyone to think that they’re saved when they truly aren’t because they simply want more attendees. If people think it’s easy to pick up the cross and follow after Christ, then they’ll keep coming back and more people will listen. And, the more people, the more tithes. The more tithes, the more money (you get the picture.) Getting back to the point, professing Christians, only, don’t have the values of a true Christian and they don’t exhibit the qualities that a life lived in submission and fellowship with Christ would. Also, be careful in terms of saying that someone is like-Christ or not. Many people are quick to say, “that’s not “Christ-like,” but because of the accusers lack of scripture based knowledge of the true nature of Christ and their reliance of popular cultures depictions of the nature of Christ, that also muddles understand of what a Christian should look like, because they don’t even know what’s Christ-like, themselves. You can only really know if you read the Bible and the gospels depicting Christ for yourself. So, even Atheist or Agnostics, or other religions for that matter, by not understanding/having read the Bible, themselves, are accomplices to the problem when they call people who actually are Christlike, not Christlike (although, the predominant onus of the problem still falls mainly on professed Christians who distort the image of what a Christian is supposed to be like and then people use the image of “professed Christians” to gauge what they think is a real Christian…which then confuses people even more.) It gets pretty confusing if you haven’t read the Bible. Anyway, the reason we don’t see many Christians preforming miracles that are akin to those of the days Jesus is because of a failure of Church teaching/guidance on scripture. There are real Christians who are earnestly seeking GOD, but don’t do miracles. And, it’s not because they can’t; they can. But, it’s either because they never even thought of doing it, or they’ve been feed the watered down gospel that downplays and doesn’t reinforce the believer about the promises that GOD assures to all who seek and follow Him with all their heart. Most people don’t doubt GOD’s power, but more often than not, many real Christians don’t GOD’s willingness to do great things through them. So, those are the 3 major reasons, if you ask me.

        • Hi Divad,

          I’ll watch 2 and 5. I understand your skepticism (TRULY). Two facts, though. One is while I don’t mean I literally have no time, I only have a certain amount and watching people’s testimonies frankly doesn’t rank very high. So you’re right. Were I to forego my work, family, eating, sleep, showering, and interests, then I’d be able to watch testimonies all the live-long day. But this leads to two. I’ve watched (and read) countless testimonies. They all claim to be amazing. They all claim to show (or say) amazing things. They all claim to change my life, to convince me, etc. All of them, yes, every last one, has amounted to one of three things: an appeal to personal experience, an appeal to logical fallacy, or an appeal to emotion, or a combination thereof. Is it possible the links you’ve provided won’t do that? Of course it’s possible, but not likely. So you have to understand that while each individual thinks his story is unique and special, they all kind of run together.

          But as I said, i’ll watch two.

          Re: true Christians, you’ve proved my point. And if the best odds I can get is 50/50, that’s the definition of random. I’m guaranteed to randomly know if someone’s a “true” Christian? Then so what? And how do I know you’re not one of those who simply professes? What are your qualifications for evaluating “true” Christianity? I agree that many people who profess are mean, lewd, profane, but I wasn’t referring to those. I’m referring to the ones who, all things being equal, seem to be “true” Christians. How do I evaluate at that point? As you said, I can’t. Given this, what possible use is there in even wondering if people like Emmanuel are “true”?

          I don’t understand the problem with using drugs. Or profanity. Are coffee drinkers not “true” Christians? Caffeine is a drug. What about consumers of chocolate? Sugar’s a drug.

          I admit I’ve not read the Bible cover to cover, but I have read quite a bit of it and even with that knowledge, I can’t tell “true” Christians from “untrue” ones.

          Thanks!

          Anton.

        • Hi Divad,

          I watched two and five.

          Thanks,

          Anton.

          • @Anton A. Hill
            Not a problem and, yeah, there really is no way for you to know conclusively.
            “What are your qualifications for evaluating “true” Christianity?”
            Well, firstly, I have to make clear that these aren’t my qualifications. The qualifications come from the Bible. That’s the only thing that can be used. So, if you REALLY want to know how to even possibly identify someone, you’d have to read the Bible.
            “And how do I know you’re not one of those who simply professes?”
            You can’–especially over the internet .
            You can only evaluate someone’s exterior. There really is no way of knowing someone’s exterior. Just think of it this way. You might have stepped on someone’s shoe and you apologize and they say, with a smile: “oh, no, don’t worry about, Sir, it’s ok; I’m not hurt, angry or mad or anything..things happen :)” Meanwhile, on the inside, they’re cursing you out and saying that if you do it again, your head is going to end up in the trash-can….So, what that person puts off, is the only amount of certainty you can have that they are not mad at you. Now, if you stepped on
            their shoe and they turned around and smacked you and then started cursing at you, you can be 100% sure that they’re mad at you. I guarantee you that they’re not saying, “jee, it’s alright; what happens, happens,” in their mind. So, that’s what I was getting at.
            You can tell a tree by it’s fruits. Usually, if someone is “rotten” on the inside, it will eventually spill outside. Emmanuel doesn’t bear bad fruit (at least, not from the outside.) Therefore, he is more trustworthy due to the built in reliability to his exhibited nature. He doesn’t water down the Gospel and he doesn’t tell people that they can take the broad and narrow path simultaneously and still expect to have fellowship with Christ (like so many pastors do.)
            Drugs alter your mind and make your mind subject/a slave to it’s influence. Paul, in the book of Romans, says: All things are lawful, but I will not be brought under the power of any. When you yield up control to an external influence, with the purpose to alter your consciousness, to diminish one’s responsibility, accountability, or mental capacity, you’re relinquishing self control and is considered a sin. Also, scripture routinely condemns intoxication, anyway. They also lead to addictions. Those addictions can also become an idol in one’s life. (based on what I said, I’m sure you can see why Chocolate and Caffine are unfit…although, I’m sure there are some caffine addicts, but the motive also needs to be taken into account)
            Profanity is a form of cursing, corrupt talk and most curse words are obscene in nature. Ephesians 4:29:”Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Colossians 3:8-“But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.”
            Matthew 12:36-37-“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
            There are multiple others, but those are the only ones that come to mind.
            I mean, you can forgo some entertainment if you want. Also, like I said: Watch one a day. I mean, you’re article was devoted to posing a question, and those videos, I believe, have the answer to the question that you probably took some time to pose–if you really want a possible answer (unless you just posed the question without any desire to actually get an answer.)
            The evidence will have to be subjective and you will have to rely on faith because GOD is not only personal but He is also immaterial. There is no way to measure a GOD who is not of this dimension (and, to be even more specific, of a much higher dimension, at that) using this dimensions’ tools. So, I’m not really sure what exactly you’re looking for.

            • Hi Divad,

              Since we both agree that there’s no way to tell a “true” Christian from a false one, I propose that the point is moot. You’ve mentioned this “fruits of the tree” method, but that opens another set of issues. First, it seems to a priori assume that a “true” Christian’s “fruit” is, well, fruit. But let’s assume that “true” Christians who show fruit show good fruit. Does this mean, then, that Christians who drink coffee, smoke, drink, but who are also kind, compassionate, aren’t “true”? And what does this say of kind, compassionate people who aren’t Christians? As in if one demonstrates traits that you and I would consider positive ones, but they aren’t Christian, then in those cases, what’s the point of Christianity? Even you admit “usually,” but “usually” doesn’t equal “always.”

              I disagree on Emmanuel. He advocates shirking professional medical care for prayer and faith healing. He has no evidence such a practice is effective. There’s a mountain of evidence that he’s wrong. I don’t know how you conclude that Emmanuel is trustworthy. Especially given his stance on medical care.

              You citation of Paul is interesting. How do you explain Christians who consider themselves “true” who have used some kind of mind-altering substance? I understand that you may not consider them “true,” but what would you tell them to convince them of that?

              How does scripture routinely condemn intoxication when Jesus himself drinks wine?

              I find your use of “idol” very broad. Are you defining “idol” as literally anything that isn’t Christ-centered? If that’s the case, can’t anything be construed as an “idol”?

              I find your use of “profanity” pretty fluid as well. Yes, some words considered swear words are literally based in obscenity, but others aren’t, and even the “based on obscenity” begs the question of what we consider “obscene” and why. For example, “goddamn” I can almost understand as being obscene as it specifically asks God to damn someone, which is literally a curse, but other words like “bitch” have nothing to do with obscenity.

              I’m not sure what question you felt I posed. It’s been a while since I read what I wrote. As I recall, my biggest objection to what Emmanuel said and does is what I’ve already pointed out regarding his attitude towards professional medical care.

              What do you mean the “evidence will have to be subjective”? Evidence of what and why must it be subjective? Why must one rely on faith (and what does “faith” mean, specifically)? I’m unclear what you mean by “God is personal.” How do you know the nature of God (being immaterial)? I’m not sure what you mean by “measure” God. I”m not sure what that would accomplish. Well, wait, first you say we can’t measure God, but now you’re listing off dimensions that exist and their nature relative to each other. What’s your evidence for these statements?

              Generally, I’m looking for people to be able to justify their beliefs with evidence and if not admit they can’t and then explain why they believe what they believe.

              Thanks!

              Anton.

              • “….but let’s assume that “true” Christians who show fruit show good fruit. Does this mean, then, that Christians who drink coffee, smoke, drink, but who are also kind, compassionate, aren’t “true”? ”
                No, a true Christian, if they are displaying character that is not Christ-like, will admit to doing so, admit that what they’re doing or did was wrong and is committed to changing that behavior or whatnot. It just says that they are kind, compassionate and etc. The point of Christianity is to follow Christ through the narrow gate. That person may be kind and compassionate, but are they good? This is a trick question in a sense because no one is good, but the point of Christianity is to bridge the chasm that’s created by GOD’s holiness and Humanities sinfulness. Also, the Christian will proclaim His/her Christianity, so that’s another difference between the Christian and the Athiest who exhibit similar traits.

                “I disagree on Emmanuel….He has no evidence such a practice is effective.”
                Are you sure he has no evidence? Or, is it you who has no evidence? If Emmanuel was the man in those videos of which I’ve shown, which technically, he is; because, all who are in Christ are of Christ and all who are of Christ have the same basic faith based assured abilities. So, I’m sure Emmanuel has his evidence. You don’t understand and haven’t borne witness to reality that he has been exposed to, so you doubt him and consider him a lunatic and untrustworthy. Ask yourself this question for a moment: “If indeed faith based healing is true and I bore witness to it, would I not take the same ostensibly lunatic stance Emmanuel has taken?” I don’t know where or when he advocated what you speak of, so if you’d like to give me a link or something or a quote (in context), I could help better answer. Also, what mountain of evidence against faith healing are you referring to?

                “How do you explain Christians who consider themselves…”
                Well, it goes back to my first paragraph. I would just read them the Bible (if they haven’t already.)

                “..intoxication when Jesus himself drinks wine?”
                Well, #1, the wine of that day was very diluted in comparison to the wine we drink today because the wine they made during Jesus’ era was partially fermented in wine skins grape juice; that’s why, if you’ve been to a Church service where they were serving communion “wine,” it’s typically grape juice. Also, keep in mind that the Bible doesn’t condemn drinking alcohol. It condemns intoxication. Jesus drank, but He was never inebriated.

                “…can’t anything be construed as an idol?”
                An idol is anything that you put before GOD or hold of higher regard or importance. Yes, if I’m not mistaken , practically anything can become an idol. Anything that if GOD were to tell you to give up and you wouldn’t immediately be able to give up can be considered an idol.

                “…but other words like “b***” have nothing to do with obscenity.”
                The B-word is a derogatory term and falls under the category of corrupt talk. There are 4 types of cursing the Bible deprecates. 1)Profanation/Blaspheme–Disrespect of GOD through the usage of language (taking the name of the LORD in vain), 2)Cursing/Condemnation–Declaration of a desire/wish that someone suffer Hell. 3)Obscenity/Corrupt–Vulgarities, obscenities and foul/rotten language and 4) Intense Insults–Self explanatory.
                Jesus taught that what comes out of a mans mouth is evidence for the condition of his heart (Luke 6:45.)
                Again, Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:29–“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
                More so, the word corrupt refers to what is foul or rotten. Foul language should never pass a Christians lips b/c it is totally out of Character with his/her new life in Christ–not Christ-like. Calling a woman or anybody else a “female dog” is not good or uplifting. At best, it’s dehumanizing.
                “Blessings and cursings should not flow from the same mouth.”

                “I’m not sure what question you felt I posed…”
                Oh, I thought part your question was asking for evidence that faith healing works.

                “What do you mean the “evidence..”
                I just mean that the evidence of GOD will not come from observing science–which only relys on objective tangible forms of testing. Hebrews 11:1–“1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” It’s the assurance of the intangible and the reality of what the Bible asserts. I know the nature of GOD because no 3 dimensional being can know the nature of a being that exists in a Higher dimension unless that begin reveals itself. When I said measure, I meant to define or characterize GOD using the scales found in our physical reality.

                “Generally, I’m looking for people to be able to justify their beliefs with evidence and if not admit they can’t and then explain why they believe what they believe.”
                Oh, lol, well, I can’t give you evidence that you can’t interpret in whatever way your schema allows. If you want absolute personal assurance, you have to search for GOD with all of your heart yourself, and I can assure you He’ll reveal Himself.

                • What if a Christian believes he’s behaving consistently with Christ, but you disagree? Who’s right and how do you know? It sounds like the only reliable difference between the best Christian and the best atheist is the Christian declares himself. What, then, is the point of being a Christian?

                  Yes, I’m sure Emmanuel has no evidence. No, I have plenty of evidence. I cite the history of medical science. What does it matter to me you’re assured of Emmanual’s evidence? He claimed to have seen a limb grow back. When I asked if he had any footage of such an amazing thing, he ignored me. Granted, he was under no obligation to produce any, but it certainly begs the question why he’d ignore me if his intentions were sincere. How do you know I don’t understand “reality”? I doubt Emmanuel because he’s made extraordinary claims and hasn’t provided evidence for them. To answer your question, not necessarily. It all depends. First I have to see the evidence. Until then, any response I give you now will be useless conjecture. He advocated that he’d seen a limb grow back among our first encounters. But feel free to ask him yourself. The mountain of evidence I’m referring to is the fact that in Idaho there exists a cemetery full of dead children, all prayed for during their illnesses. The cemetery is owned by a Christian organization who believes only in prayer–not medical assistance. I at least two cars, a young man and young woman, they suffered from ailments medical science easily could’ve taken care of, but, due to their religious beliefs, they refused medical care and only prayed for their children. The children died. The prayers didn’t work. There’s also the Templeton Foundation (a Christian organization) study which studied the effects of people praying for hospital patients. They found prayer had no effect.

                  In fact I have been to many church services that served wine. I grant that the church wine may have been different from your allegations of Jesus’ wine, but it was wine. It was intoxicating. The point, however, wan’t whether jesus got drunk. The point was, as you’d claimed, that drinking is bad. So now the question is, is it drinking that’s bad or intoxication. It seemed you were against drinking of any kind.

                  Okay, so we’re agreed. Anything can be considered an idol

                  Ah, certainly on the question o the question. So feel free to provide evidence that faith healing works.

                  Why won’t the evidence of God come from science? Why should he be excluded from it? What’s wrong with objective, tangible forms of testing? Yes, I’m aware of H 11:1. I don’t see how that has to be mutually exclusive with science. How do you know you know the nature of God? why do you speak of “dimensions”? That seems like a quantified measurement. Why is revelation the only method?

                  Thank you for admitting you have no evidence for God. I’m not interested in absolute personal assurance. I’m interested in knowing why you believe what you believe.

                  With that, I’m off for three weeks.

                  Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: