Christian myths – which are the most rampant? (Page 5)

Angry Beaver: They're all LGBTQ now, they eat, drink and be Mary

Zanjan: Next, is the Christian myth of Spiritual Revivals – that is, they can save the world.

Everything discussed so far illustrates how a different Christianity existed prior to the Christianity of today. There’s absolutely no way anyone can revive the past. There’s no going back to the ‘fundamentals’ as a means of reviving the spirit either.

God has predestined the life span of the religion’s dispensation. It’s potential to save the world occurs in the beginning, ending by the mid-way point of the dispensation. Thus, no church today is the true (pure) church because it’s not the nascent church.

Can the spirit of faith be summoned under the tent? Not likely. Who goes to religious revivals except those who already have faith?? Surely the aim is to stir up excitement where participation is languishing.

To pluck interest, one needs to pose an uncommon method of presentation. Traditionally, this ends as just another reformation. If something is revived, surely it will stay around for a while. These reformations don’t – a new church appears every week.

Today, Christian faith healing engagements and country rock/gospel concerts are used as tools seemingly to spread their religion; in reality, they’re just fundraisers. They’re expressions of their faith, rather than something that cultivates it.

The true spirit of Christianity is applied in active service to God and humanity; it isn’t attracted through the spectacle of entertainment. The world needs good role models; the more desperate and broken the world, the more excellent must be the role models.

There’s no other way for the servants of God to make a moving impression, inspiring one to serve in kind.

chronology: Zan, quite a sweeping statement. Some of the most impressive revivals were impressive to say the least.

Billy Graham in the 1950s in New York City and other major cities Dr Graham held meetings attended by hundreds of thousands of people.

My own favourite revival was in Los Angeles in the early 1900s. The Azusa street revival saw thousands of people rolling around on the saw dust floor and praising Jesus. People crying laughing shrieking. Stumble Bums hit the saw dust path to go forward and give their hearts to Jesus.

American religious leaders were horrified at the antics in Azusa street. But hey Los Angeles went on to spread the Gospels would wide with new sects of Christianity.
Axusa street was not easy on the eye or the intellects of people who watched the manic upheavals, but from that crazy start in life tens of thousands of people around got saved and are now enjoying harp music up in the sky.

There is a lot of discussion about street gangs in LA. Am certain a lot of Gang Bangers if they lived back then would have thrown aside their guns and rolled with everyone else in the saw dust shouting Praise Jesus.

Zanjan: Well, bells, whistles and glitter, eh. Those faith-healing events one often sees in the USA are hoaxes. They focus on healing the physical body, not a lack of faith.

My grandmother denied that, of course. She told me she went to a faith healer to fix her goiter. He spit on her head and the goiter disappeared. I wonder if she just didn't buy a new box of table salt (iodized).

The behaviour you described is called an MPI - it's the well-known effect of mass hypnotism, similar to mass hysteria. Nobody checks out the backgrounds of these individuals or follows up on their lives afterward.

I can assure you that out of the many who say they suddenly found faith, very few remain in faith. It's the same in all religions but nobody likes to talk about those stats. There's a divine process going on, traditionally called the "winnowing of the sheeves". You can't fool God.

chronology: Aww come on Zan. Am sure there are lots of folks from LA up there in the big house in the sky.

Zanjan: Who knows? One has a whole lifetime to change their attitude; it can happen on their very last breath. That works both ways; the faithful can often fail on their last breath.

For that reason, the religious pray frequently for steadfastness. We think we know ourselves but there's bound to be a few surprises.

chronology: Well there are so many different points of view in religion there will have to be some surprises. Hey, Hindu's are expecting Lord Kishna to greet them. Islamic folks are waiting for their God, christians are expecting Mary or Jesus or St Peter or something to meet and greet them.

This is what makes atheists so confident that there is nothing after death.

Zanjan: Atheists are right about that - all agree there's nothing for them after death. No virtues, no divine favours, no grace, no jobs, no influence, no friends, no prayers, no access to any power.

No man has created himself. What atheists don't know is that, after death, they'll continue to exist, naked and aware of what has escaped them. They'll be crippled with a withered soul, unable to do anything for themselves. In that, all religionists agree. Ergo, they're all right.

You see, when a soul passes on to the next world, they're released from this prison - all the bad in themselves drops away. They bring only the good with them; be it a roaring flame or spark, however small, the light in the soul is the only thing with substance.

chronology: Zan, as atheists say to folks like yourself, do you have a single scrap of evidence for these hateful prediction's you are making?

As one atheist said of religion, it is a mentally abusive death obsessed mental illness.
I don't agree with all of that, but hey. If the shoe fits.

Zanjan: Well, how much evidence do *you* have of what sort of life exists after death?

Everything we know about it can only come from God. His Revelators know and have told us. Some people don't believe them. Many have come back from the dead and told others. Most don't believe them either, despite observations that the experience had changed their lives.

It's hard to convince folks this physical plane has a purpose and what that purpose is. If they understood this, then they'd know why the Hereafter exists.

There's no point in using reason or logic with those who take a position on something without any evidence at all to support it. I'm sure if I tried to explain radio waves to stone age people, they'd all reject that too. Despite scientific proof, I still can't convince atheists their thoughts aren't trapped in their skulls.

Zanjan: That atheist has lost the signal, Chron. Hang around believers and you'll see almost none of them are thinking about their death or anyone else's unless it's on an anniversary.

In fact, if any of the sincere believers have thoughts of suicide or murder, they reign those in and won't act on it because God forbids it. Atheists can't say that for themselves. That's how you know militants and terrorists are actually atheists.

chronology: Zan, Atheists who have 'hung around' with believers think half of them a can or two short of a six pack, and the other half are onto a good thing conning the other half.

AchillesSinatra: "Despite scientific proof, I still can't convince atheists their thoughts aren't trapped in their skulls."-- Zanjan


As far as I'm aware, the "hereafter" appears nowhere in the premises or the conclusion of any scientific theory.

May I see this proof?

chronology: Achilles Old Chap, do you really expect a sensible answer to your question. ?

AchillesSinatra: Nope. I expect more holier-than-thou, nescient codswallop.

Zanjan: "May I see this proof? "

Yes you may. Do you want to? This has been well--documented - scientifically by empirical evidence. If you prefer instrumental evidence, you're barking up the wrong tree; the closest science has come is determining there are many more dimensions but they don't understand how those work.

AchillesSinatra: Instrumental evidence? It's not a term I'm familiar with.

Would you mind explaining?

AchillesSinatra: Or are you making up codswallop again?

Zanjan: Instrumental evidence -> recordings made by machinery; results interpreted by humans.

AchillesSinatra: So, I asked to see proof.

You said it's well-documented.

This really doesn't help very much.

It's a bit like me asking to see your proof, and you replying "there's lots of it".

Zanjan: Any observations are always interpreted by the observer, regardless of the methods and means used. Therefore, I leave you to do your own research and make those decisions for yourself.

AchillesSinatra: Well, since "the Hereafter" is scientifically proven, as you claim (with your hallmark absurdity), why is it not recognized by all scientists?

What's their problem? Too dense to understand the proof?

AchillesSinatra: "Yes you may. Do you want to? This has been well--documented - scientifically by empirical evidence."


Why don't you stick to fairy tales, Zanjan? It just gets embarrassing when you bloviate on topics you know zilch about.

How do you distinguish empirical evidence from non-empirical evidence?

Zanjan: "why is it not recognized by all scientists?"

For the same reason not all people recognize science or who I am.

"How do you distinguish empirical evidence from non-empirical evidence?"

I would do a comparison with plenty of cross-checking. When results by many individuals appear to be consistent, those are worth investigating further.

Most people don't know whether someone is telling the truth or not - that's because they haven't learned the signals. They think the answers should just fall in their lap.

Some very clever individuals can't read body language either, even with a full set of instructions at hand. Wisdom can't be borrowed.

AchillesSinatra: No, no.

Come on, now. Your claim is that the "Hereafter" has been scientifically proven.

If proven, as you claim, it ought to be believed by all scientists. Doncha think?