Video Blog: The Case for Christ

Originally posted by ushomefree
What do you recommend we talk about? And in what type of fashion?

You and I? Nothing at all. We've been down that road, and it annoyed the hell out of me. But you probably have to stop acting like you have a strangle-hold on the truth and need to get others to believe the same things as you. Most people on the forums are big boys and girls, and resent being prosthelytized (sic?) to by other members who try to push their agendas and opinions on others.

"People conversing together about religious topics and opinions in search of further understanding" is a better way to look at it than "I need to 'win' the debate against the other side and covert people or tell them why they're wrong." And if you don't think you're the latter of those two, I can assure you that that's how you come across. Most of your ID posts, the recent anecdote about the MySpace guy, or numerous other posts, are prime examples of this type of behavior. It's condescending and doesn't go over well.

Better yet, leave ID threads alone for a while and try your hand at other topics. Because you're starting to get pretty one-tracked with the ID stuff, and eventually their aren't many new members that don't already have an opinion on you and your points....that's when they start tuning you out and getting nasty (which I don't advocate, but is inevitable sometimes on internet forums).

ushomefree are you interested in hearing how other people believe?

Originally posted by Captain REX
How about you listen to what I've asked you to do instead of accusing me of picking on you? You were bashing the thread openly, we don't tolerate it, so don't do it. 🙂

mmmk, wanna know i say you pick on me? becaaaaaaaauuuuuuse whenever other people "bash" no one says jack but when its me, u always tell me to calm down.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ushomefree are you interested in hearing how other people believe?

i believe he is, but i dont think any evidence can ever convince him. he's one of those people who never give up on their beliefs no matter what quantities of evidence there are

Shakyamunison-

I subscribed to the KMC to engage in debate, and learning from others in the process is something I greet with open arms. However, when discussing any topic, and someone presents something that isn't true, I'm going to address it accordingly. On the flip side, if I'm unsure (or really haven't a clue), I won't say anything!

For example, in the past, the notion was raised that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character. I know that is false, but am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Give me a break.

Or how about when someone states that science proves--through quantum theory--that something comes from nothing (requiring no energy on top of that)? I mean... c'mon... that is a slap in the face to all of science. This too, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Again, give me a break; and the list goes on.

From things about the Gospels being edited to Christianity borrowing "core" ideas from other religions, it's simply not valid. I even posted 2 video debates from YouTube to address the claim. I didn't do this to feel high and mightly--good about myself. Who cares? I did it to present the truth! And after doing so, I was told that the debators were weak. Yes, both of them. Again, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that was an excellent point"? No Shakyamunison. No one in their right mind would do that, unless they just flat out didn't care; but I do--about the truth itself and the need for people to know the truth (about any given topic).

It's a big deal to me. I take it seriously. Perhaps too seriously at times? I've posted things in the past, where the first thing people did was attack my source.

"Oh... this is BS," "This is Christian propaganda," "That is from a Creationist website," "That is unscientific," "That's a Christian term," "This site is proporting lies," and "This is dogmatic nonsense," are things that I commonly get bombarded with.

And directed towords myself: "Your bias," "Your full of s**t," "Your not open-minded," "Your spreading lies," "Your arrogant," and "Your only here to preach," is what I read.

And I'm the one supposedly having a bad attitude or method of addressing issues presented in the forum? Give me a break, please. And I do not profess to be right all the time!

A member named "xmarksthespot" corrected me a few days ago on a thread, and I owned up to it (immediately)! And what DigiMark007 brought up to my attention is true; I do need to subside with the Intelligent Design/Darwinian Evolution threads. And I will. The guy is right. And one last thing, when I shared the story of how I tried to help a guy on MySpace about what being Christian was about, the statement, "Holy S**t you are arrogant," was directed towards me.

Now... I'm sorry; but anyone having the slightest idea of what being Chrisitain entails--and stands for--would immediately know that the guy I spoke about was not Christian. Biblical Christians repent from sin, because they want to serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the best way that they can) in faith. As a result, they will be "born again" of the Holy Spirit. They will be a new creation. Meaning, sin will always remain; but sin will no longer be the corner stone of one's life. Sin will be the exception, and they are saved. Biblical Christians take this seriously, because they have faith in Jesus Christ. Christians love Jesus! They want to honor Him, and so they would never blatantly set up a MySpace profile in the manner this Hip-Hop guy did. The Holy Spirit adds conviction in one's life, and he certainly showed no signs of that.

I'm not judging "him" personally; only God has the authority to do that. I am merely judging his "actions." And I am able to do so, because God is Holy. So, to whoever called me "arrogant," you please need to think about what you say (and why you say it)? Thank you.

Oh please, spare the sob story. All your threads thus far that I've seen have essentially been nothing more than thinly veiled outlets for you to attempt proselytize and/or blather on about intelligent design. JIA without the color.

Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the total energy of the universe equaling zero, random uncaused fluctuations in spacetime, virtual particles, symmetry principles, etc. etc. show the universe as we know it can arise from "nothing" via completely natural processes.

You responded to this by blathering on about general relativity, when it doesn't apply at quantum levels.

You blathered on that there were oodles and oodles of literature from scientists supporting intelligent design, or an intelligent agent. When I asked for one, singular peer-reviewed paper from a reputable journal you gave nothing but blathering rhetoric.

Bad grammar has been directed towards you? Cry me a river.

You're free to believe "Magic man done it." but don't claim it's scientific and don't try and shove it in people's faces.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh please, spare the sob story. All your threads thus far that I've seen have essentially been nothing more than thinly veiled outlets for you to attempt proselytize and/or blather on about intelligent design. JIA without the color.

Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the total energy of the universe equaling zero, random uncaused fluctuations in spacetime, virtual particles, symmetry principles, etc. etc. show the universe as we know it can arise from "nothing" via completely natural processes.

You responded to this by blathering on about general relativity, when it doesn't apply at quantum levels.

You blathered on that there were oodles and oodles of literature from scientists supporting intelligent design, or an intelligent agent. When I asked for one, singular peer-reviewed paper from a reputable journal you gave nothing but blathering rhetoric.

Bad grammar has been directed towards you? Cry me a river.

You're free to believe "Magic man done it." but don't claim it's scientific and don't try and shove it in people's faces.

To state, that my threads are thinly veiled outlets to attempt proselytizing and blathering about intelligent design is simply laughable; by your standard, we must conclude, that all members of the KMC--including yourself--commit such unforgivable, heinous acts. Relax; take a vacation. Lord forbid, that I disagree with the position of threads and provide a counter-argument. And how you propose that subatomic particles, atoms, etc., derive from quantum processes void of energy--from nothing!--escapes my mind. Your ego could move mountains. Energy is the back-bone of Quantum Mechanics! The origin of the universe, not to mention simple/complex organisms remains the most fantastic challenge for science to address; and it remains an utter mystery.

As I have previously stated, science is relentlessly in pursuit of acquiring knowledge pertaining to "cause" and "effect" phenomena in the observable universe; period. You, and scientists who hold the position, are walking on thin ice to conclude (and demand) that all "causes" must be natural. Thinking of this capacity reflects bias views, when in fact, all options should be on the table! And not doing so undermines science as a whole.

When science has demonstrated that mass, energy, space, and time birthed simultaneously (fine-tuned) and cells containing molecular machines performing functions ranging from replication and energy conversion to molecule transport and various signaling (containing highly coordinated moving parts)--and how this came into existence remains an utter mystery--it is not absurd to infer Intelligent Design--the product of an Intelligent Agent. And I haven't even discussed biological information; it's information! Where did it come from?

On the other hand, by natural means, we assume (and it doesn't look promising):

(1) nothing produces everything,

(2) non-life produces life,

(3) randomness produces fine-tuning, and

(4) chaos produces information.

In my view, the latter is completely unscientific, and it makes absolutely no sense. It's a religion.

YouTube video

DNA Wrapping/Replication
Running Time: 3:07

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

I subscribed to the KMC to engage in debate, and learning from others in the process is something I greet with open arms. However, when discussing any topic, and someone presents something that isn't true, I'm going to address it accordingly. On the flip side, if I'm unsure (or really haven't a clue), I won't say anything!

For example, in the past, the notion was raised that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character. I know that is false, but am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Give me a break.

Or how about when someone states that science proves--through quantum theory--that something comes from nothing (requiring no energy on top of that)? I mean... c'mon... that is a slap in the face to all of science. This too, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Again, give me a break; and the list goes on.

From things about the Gospels being edited to Christianity borrowing "core" ideas from other religions, it's simply not valid. I even posted 2 video debates from YouTube to address the claim. I didn't do this to feel high and mightly--good about myself. Who cares? I did it to present the truth! And after doing so, I was told that the debators were weak. Yes, both of them. Again, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that was an excellent point"? No Shakyamunison. No one in their right mind would do that, unless they just flat out didn't care; but I do--about the truth itself and the need for people to know the truth (about any given topic).

It's a big deal to me. I take it seriously. Perhaps too seriously at times? I've posted things in the past, where the first thing people did was attack my source.

"Oh... this is BS," "This is Christian propaganda," "That is from a Creationist website," "That is unscientific," "That's a Christian term," "This site is proporting lies," and "This is dogmatic nonsense," are things that I commonly get bombarded with.

And directed towords myself: "Your bias," "Your full of s**t," "Your not open-minded," "Your spreading lies," "Your arrogant," and "Your only here to preach," is what I read.

And I'm the one supposedly having a bad attitude or method of addressing issues presented in the forum? Give me a break, please. And I do not profess to be right all the time!

A member named "xmarksthespot" corrected me a few days ago on a thread, and I owned up to it (immediately)! And what DigiMark007 brought up to my attention is true; I do need to subside with the Intelligent Design/Darwinian Evolution threads. And I will. The guy is right. And one last thing, when I shared the story of how I tried to help a guy on MySpace about what being Christian was about, the statement, "Holy S**t you are arrogant," was directed towards me.

Now... I'm sorry; but anyone having the slightest idea of what being Chrisitain entails--and stands for--would immediately know that the guy I spoke about was not Christian. Biblical Christians repent from sin, because they want to serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the best way that they can) in faith. As a result, they will be "born again" of the Holy Spirit. They will be a new creation. Meaning, sin will always remain; but sin will no longer be the corner stone of one's life. Sin will be the exception, and they are saved. Biblical Christians take this seriously, because they have faith in Jesus Christ. Christians love Jesus! They want to honor Him, and so they would never blatantly set up a MySpace profile in the manner this Hip-Hop guy did. The Holy Spirit adds conviction in one's life, and he certainly showed no signs of that.

I'm not judging "him" personally; only God has the authority to do that. I am merely judging his "actions." And I am able to do so, because God is Holy. So, to whoever called me "arrogant," you please need to think about what you say (and why you say it)? Thank you.

A simple yes or no answer would have been fine.

Are you ever wrong? Of course you are; everyone from time to time is wrong. The problem I see is that you only come from one point of view, and you seem to be unable to see the topic from someone elses view. Again, we all have this problem from time to time.

I don't know about the YouTube clips you show because YouTube is blocked on my computer here at work, but you have used biased sources in the past, and that only discredits your point in my eyes. I suggest you try to get away from the Christian web sights when arguing with a non-Christian. Like for example: if you were to learn a little about my religion, and then showed that I was wrong by my own beliefs, I would have to listen. However, that takes a lot of work and you may not want to do that.

Shakyamunison-

You seem to be a good person; honestly. And yes, I have been wrong about many things in life, and I have no problem dealing with that. We all have bias views; but it is imperative to keep them in check--to remain open. You simply must understand, that I do that!

About 4 to 5 years ago, when I decided to take religious study seriously, I didn't dive straight into Christianity without question; my heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects. To be practical, I studied religions that had the most influence in the world. I thought that was a logical place to start. I don't have the time or resources to study every religion in the world; but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the heavy hitters that I began with. And throughout my studies, questions and concerns would arise, and I found myself studying other religions to find answers.

In studying these religions, theology was not the only subject I referenced. I also studied science, archeology, and history. It was hard work (and expensive), but I enjoyed all the study. For me, it was mentally stimulating. But getting to the point, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the most formidable in my findings.

In the end, I embraced Christianity. Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah; Jews were expecting an "earthly" King, and they ignore aspects of their own Scripture, namely, prophecy of the coming Messiah. Some Jewish sects actually remove Isaiah 53 out of Scripture. Islam rejects Jesus as Messiah; but the Koran was written 600 years after the fact. It is not reliable in regards to the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you wish to get your foot in the door of why I became Christian, watch the videos I presented in this thread (when you get home). As for science, specifically Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution, I studied those subjects as well. Hands down, Evolution is true; but not on the "macro" level. When naturalists study molecular biology, astronomy, or physics, they have to constantly remind themselves that God does not exist. And I do not understand that. What's to fear? Accountability? I honestly cannot think of a thread where members of the forum provided a convincing/persuasive argument.

What's to fear in truth?

The last "anti-religious" video I watched was presented by Richard Dawkins entitled, "The Root Of All Evil." And prior to that, I watched the movie entitled, "The God Who Wasn't There," presented by Brian Flemming. Sam Harris? I watched his book presentation on television! Members of the forum think they know me; but they haven't a clue. When I make the statement that I have studied and remian open-minded, it should be taken seriously. Instead, I'm ridiculed.

What did you think of my last post--the response to xmarksthespot? Did you:

(A) agree with the majority of it,

(B) disagree with the majority of it, or

(C) found it mentally stimulating, but remain neutral?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

You seem to be a good person; honestly. And yes, I have been wrong about many things in life, and I have no problem dealing with that. We all have bias views; but it is imperative to keep them in check--to remain open. You simply must understand, that I do that!

About 4 to 5 years ago, when I decided to take religious study seriously, I didn't dive straight into Christianity without question; my heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects. To be practical, I studied religions that had the most influence in the world. I thought that was a logical place to start. I don't have the time or resources to study every religion in the world; but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the heavy hitters that I began with. And throughout my studies, questions and concerns would arise, and I found myself studying other religions to find answers.

In studying these religions, theology was not the only subject I referenced. I also studied science, archeology, and history. It was hard work (and expensive), but I enjoyed all the study. For me, it was mentally stimulating. But getting to the point, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the most formidable in my findings.

In the end, I embraced Christianity. Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah; Jews were expecting an "earthly" King, and they ignore aspects of their own Scripture, namely, prophecy of the coming Messiah. Some Jewish sects actually remove Isaiah 53 out of Scripture. Islam rejects Jesus as Messiah; but the Koran was written 600 years after the fact. It is not reliable in regards to the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you wish to get your foot in the door of why I became Christian, watch the videos I presented in this thread (when you get home). As for science, specifically Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution, I studied those subjects as well. Hands down, Evolution is true; but not on the "macro" level. When naturalists study molecular biology, astronomy, or physics, they have to constantly remind themselves that God does not exist. And I do not understand that. What's to fear? Accountability? I honestly cannot think of a thread where members of the forum provided a convincing/persuasive argument.

What's to fear in truth?

The last "anti-religious" video I watched was presented by Richard Dawkins entitled, "The Root Of All Evil." And prior to that, I watched the movie entitled, "The God Who Wasn't There," presented by Brian Flemming. Sam Harris? I watched his book presentation on television! Members of the forum think they know me; but they haven't a clue. When I make the statement that I have studied and remian open-minded, it should be taken seriously. Instead, I'm ridiculed.

What did you think of my last post--the response to xmarksthespot? Did you:

(A) agree with the majority of it,

(B) disagree with the majority of it, or

(C) found it mentally stimulating, but remain neutral?

Sorry, but I didn't read it. If I get the time I will read back, but I'm really busy right now. However, you have a valid point. Communication is a two way street, and if the other person is not willing to see it from your point of view, then why should you?

As far as going home and getting on the forum: I'm in the middle of a recording project that has been on going for 3 years. I'm in that really tedious phase of listening to every track alone. I have hundreds of tracks. That has been my life after work. 🙁

Do not encourage idiots.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Do not encourage idiots.

All people can learn, and we all have the Buddha nature that searches. Even an idiot will become a Buddha.

Originally posted by ushomefree
To state, that my threads are thinly veiled outlets to attempt proselytizing and blathering about intelligent design is simply laughable; by your standard, we must conclude, that all members of the KMC--including yourself--commit such unforgivable, heinous acts. Relax; take a vacation.

Ha ha indeed.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Lord forbid, that I disagree with the position of threads and provide a counter-argument. And how you propose that subatomic particles, atoms, etc., derive from quantum processes void of energy--from nothing!--escapes my mind. Your ego could move mountains. Energy is the back-bone of Quantum Mechanics! The origin of the universe, not to mention simple/complex organisms remains the most fantastic challenge for science to address; and it remains an utter mystery.

You haven't offered any counter-argument to physicists besides "Magic man done it."

Originally posted by ushomefree
As I have previously stated, science is relentlessly in pursuit of acquiring knowledge pertaining to "cause" and "effect" phenomena in the observable universe; period. You, and scientists who hold the position, are walking on thin ice to conclude (and demand) that all "causes" must be natural. Thinking of this capacity reflects bias views, when in fact, all options should be on the table! And not doing so undermines science as a whole.

Originally posted by ushomefree
When science has demonstrated that mass, energy, space, and time birthed simultaneously (fine-tuned) and cells containing molecular machines performing functions ranging from replication and energy conversion to molecule transport and various signaling (containing highly coordinated moving parts)--and how this came into existence remains an utter mystery--it is not absurd to infer Intelligent Design--the product of an Intelligent Agent. And I haven't even discussed biological information; it's information! Where did it come from?

On the other hand, by natural means, we assume (and it doesn't look promising):

(1) nothing produces everything,

(2) non-life produces life,

(3) randomness produces fine-tuning, and

(4) chaos produces information.

In my view, the latter is completely unscientific, and it makes absolutely no sense. It's a religion.

"When people make statements about something they know nothing about." hypocrisy.

Heh. I told him what the inevitable response to his arrogant tactics would be, then he proceeded to list a bunch of those responses like somehow they vindicated shoddy posting. Yeah, other people can be d*cks too, ushome. It's not excusable but it doesn't absolve you of arrogance and idiocy. And it doesn't change my point. Until you start treating the forums as a place to hang out and talk while sharing ideas, it'll be more of the same.

At this point he's done little but fall into his past traps guys, including some video (amongst the dozens of others) to make whatever point it makes. I consider most of his threads anymore as spam and have basically had the same mentality toward him and his prosthelytizing that I do toward JIA. He showed the desire to change momentarily but appears to have failed in the execution, so my opinion (and future indifference) won't really change.

...

Also, pretty much everything X said.

ushomefree if i may make a suggestion so that u dont sound so.....frigid. when you talk your analytical. thats not bad per se, but when you talk like that constantly and you have an air around you that says "im better than you" people get angry. ty and imitate other peoples speech patterns.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I haven't proposed anything, I've stated experimentally verified mechanisms in modern physics by which the universe can arise via natural processes.

You're under the assumption that all things must have a cause, when random uncaused quantum phenomena have been confirmed experimentally.

For one thing, under current models matter, energy and spacetime weren't "birthed" simultaneously.

On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.

Originally posted by ushomefree
On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.

You should avoid post just to insult. Other people might be able to get away with it, but I don't think it will make you any points.

Originally posted by ushomefree
On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.

O MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU QUOTED SOMEONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A MIRACLE!!

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ushomefree if i may make a suggestion so that u dont sound so.....frigid. when you talk your analytical. thats not bad per se, but when you talk like that constantly and you have an air around you that says "im better than you" people get angry. ty and imitate other peoples speech patterns.

Thank you; I'll work on it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Thank you; I'll work on it.

thank you for the love of god finally

EDIT: for the love of science AND Chuck Norris