..And in Him All Things Hold Together!! The Story of Laminin!!

If you're looking for slam dunk proof, you're never going to find it.

roughly coincides with a Roman tool of execution

Roughly?! Looks like it coincides exactly. And what about the galaxy photo?

Dennis, look again at the second photo. On the right is the exact electron microscope photo of what we are talking about, and yes it is shaped like a cross.

Every thing's a coincidence to an unbeliever. I think it's the fingerprint of God!!

Sure, click here

I do appreciate your civil and respectful tone though, unlike many others here.

Well DNA doesn't exactly look like a double helix either, but that's what we call it.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying, that it's the religious significance of it that we are discussing here, not whether or not it looks like a cross, just like we would not argue that DNA is not in the shape of a double helix, although when you look at a real electron microscope of one, it is not exactly in the shape of a double helix. The molecular diagram is though, just as the molecular diagram of Laminin IS in the shape of a cross. I will remind you that this molecular drawing was done by scientists, not by the church. You can look it up in any Biology book on the subject of Laminim, just as if you look up DNA in any Biology book you will see a double helix.

From wikipedia, in which the religious significance is not even discussed:

They are shaped like a cross.

Read the article again, that is not where I am getting my information. But I do quote from wikipedia from time to time, as I have found it to be pretty trustworthy. Many other people on Newsvine quote from it as well.

This article is not flawed at any rate. It is my opinion based on the FACT that laminin IS shaped like a cross and also the whirlpool galaxy photo has a cross in it. IF you even look closely at it, you can even see what looks like a figure hanging on it.

I was gonna delete your comment but thought I'd leave it as proof of the religious hatred and intolerance on newsvine!! Good job!!

But don't take a trivial coincidence as proof of anything or you are opening up yourself, and your faith, to ridicule.

I don't think so, sincere criticism is fine, ridicule is not.

Once again, this is only one of MANY coincidences, I actually provided two such coincidences in this article, not one.

Oh, and I did not offer this as "proof", only as one more bit of evidence. Do with that evidence what you will, you already know what I, myself, have done with it.

Read again, XF, no one here, certainly not me, ever claimed that it PROVES God. Nothing can ever PROVE God, just as you can not disprove God. Have you ever heard the statement the proof is in the pudding?! Well in this case, the proof is in your heart, in each individual heart, that being the case, I can't prove his existence to you, you have to do that yourself.

This article was merely showing that for those of who do believe in God and his Son, Jesus Christ, this is a beautiful testament to that belief, in that "his works are made manifest in his creation."

Secondly, challenging assertions is fine, but you should put some thought into what you say instead of just calling people who differ from you idiotic and ignorant?! Ya think?! It just makes you look like a religious bigot!!

And keeping with my long standing policy, I did not delete your comments, so as to let them be seen by all as what it is, hatred, anger and bigotry. I did report your comment as inflammatory though.

You might want to try to be a little nicer, it works oh so much better for fruitful discussion. I know, I've been guilty of arguing in exactly the same fashion as you in the past. Not only does it turn people off to anything further you have to say, it simply does not work.

People change Brad. If I can label myself as an agnostic, first off, it means that I'm open minded as to the God question, secondly it means I can unlabel myself as one and relabel as whatever I choose, as I choose.

I guess it's time for me to write that article explaining my recent and ongoing religious conversion back to the religion of my youth. Just so people don't remain confused as you just were.

Why do I have to be a fanatic? Call me what you will, I care not!! I know what I feel in my heart is true!!

I could label you as a hater and a persecutor but I won't. I did report your comment as inflammatory though. Once again, I won't delete it though, I'll just leave it up as a fine example of anti-religious hatred and bigotry on Newsvine.

you're the one pulling the persecution card not I. And let me give you a little hint as to how Newsvine works. I can write any kind of article that I so choose. As can you. I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone. This article is my opinion and there are some who agree with me, many others who don't, but you are the first to claim that I'm pushing my beliefs on anyone in this article. Stating one's beliefs, which is what we are all here on Newsvine for, is not the same as pushing my beliefs on anyone. You want to know why? You don't have to be here taking part in this discussion. This is a free world, and a free Newsvine, you can participate wherever you choose, but you CAN'T participate and then claim I'm the one pushing my beliefs on you. It doesn't work that way. Also, are you gonna go to all the Atheistic articles on Newsvine, which are much more prevalent and tell them to stop pushing their beliefs? I bet not!

As the philosopher Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me."

So enjoy your rediscovered faith, but stop trying to convert others to your beliefs.

In essence you are telling me not to write about my beliefs. As for your Thomas Jefferson quote, I am well aware that he was a Deist, but here's the thing, I don't really care what he said about religion, he was a man, just like I'm a man. I care what Jesus Christ said, not Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson didn't have any special knowledge to be making such claims.

You know, it is really comical to me when people quote famous people of history to try and prove a point. It's ridiculous, you know why? Because for every quote you can trot out, I can trot out an equally persuasive quote from the opposing camp. Are we gonna make this a war to see who can provide the most quotes?

Pay no attention to what the critics say... Remember, a statue has never been set up in honor of a critic! Jean Sibelius (1865 - 1957), quoted in Bengt de Torne "Sibelius: A Close-Up" 1937

I notice that you have absolutely nothing to say about my so called coincidences. You would just rather be a critic.

Yet, in an extraordinarily staggering statement about Jesus Christ, Napoleon said something that is almost unexcelled by any political leader. I quote it at length because of its incredible insight. I only wish I had it with me when I met with these generals. Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:

QUOTE
Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him.... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man.... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me.... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts.... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is accountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.1

Your turn!!

Well he is the basis for our religion, I am going to trust more what he said than what Voltaire or Thomas Jefferson said about Christianity. See the difference? We could quote different historical figures all day, till we were blue in the face, it proves nothing. It would just be an exercise in who can google the fastest. Me quoting Jesus is the basis for my faith. In other words, if we were talking about George Washington instead, and people were using quotes from every one else EXCEPT George Washington himself to try and prove what he believed, I would say they are being silly as well. I would come back with quotes from Washington himself. Would you then complain that all Im doing is using quotes from Washington? He's the one we are talking about. In this case, Jesus is the one we are talking about, I have no qualms with quoting him and it is therefore NOT the same as quoting what Voltaire thought of him. In actuality, neither Voltaire, Jefferson or anyone has anything to say about Jesus, they criticized Christianity, the religion and sometimes rightly so, but they could not and were not criticizing Jesus.

Might be well said, but the problem is that it is simply not true at all. Jesus was most certainly a historical figure, just as Muhammad was, as attested to by the vast majority of historians of all religious stripes or no religion at all. You can claim that you don't believe he was the son of God, that he didnt resurrect himself from the grave, that he is not alive today, we can discuss all those things, but let's not pretend he didnt exist. It makes you look historically ignorant.

I haven't been confronted with facts, only assertions. I have read many many books on the subject, most historians agree that the man existed, the only group who doesn't is the Jesus Seminar.

One of the most active groups in biblical criticism,[3] the seminar uses controversial methods (votes with colored marbles) to determine what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done.

Excuse me if I discount anything these kooks have to say.

Your comments did not warrant a response. Everyone knows Jesus existed as a human being, there is no extant evidence outside the Gospels that he rose from the dead, but he did live and breathe and die.

From wikipedia:

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] However, a very small minority[2][3] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[4]

Ever hear of Josephus?!

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[40] though a few have raised doubts.[41]

More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[42]

Before you claim that Josephus is controversial in this regard, read up on it. Most modern scholars believe that he did in fact mention Jesus but that later scribes embellished it to call him the Christ.

Ever hear of Tacitus?

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50]

Ever hear of Pliny the Younger?

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.[61]

Ever hear of Thallus?

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.[61]

v

Ever hear of Thallus, or Lucian, or Celsus?

Thallus, whose identity is difficult to determine, is known to have written a history from the Trojan War to his own time, which was sometime in the first or early second century. His work has been lost. Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, in discussing Jesus' crucifixion, wrote that Thallus had described the "worldwide" darkness mentioned in the Gospels:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.[62]

Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[63]

Celsus, a late second-century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer.[64] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".[65]

Ever hear of the Jewish Talmud?

The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.[69]

Is that enough contemporary sources for you? While a few have some problems, such as Josephus, you can NOT claim that there simply no contemporary sources, unless you want to claim that later Christians doctored these texts. I doubt very highly that any Christians doctored the Jewish Talmud however.

You know what, you told me to put up or shut up, I think it's time for you to shut up or go peddle your lies elsewhere. Those scholars who doubt the historicity of Jesus are a very few minority. Read up on it, you can go beyond just wikipedia, if you wish, there are tons of books on the subject, tons of websites. Jesus was a real breathing human being, if you want to argue about his divinity, fine, we can do that, but if you want to argue that he didn't even exist, well then we have nothing to discuss because you obviously don't care about the truth.

Jesus died on or around 33 AD, to claim, which you might that some of these sources are 70 years after the fact, I will remind you first that these are secular Roman sources, not Christian sources, and one of them is the Jewish Talmud, which the Christians could NOT have altered, and secondly that it would be about as ludicrous to claim that Jesus did not exist, as it would be today to claim that Hitler never existed.

Brad, first of all, you are the only one getting angry here. Are you capable of having a discussion without calling people ignorant? If you can't, then this conversation is truly over and I will proceed to delete every subsequent comment of yours. Do you not see what an ass you are making of yourself? Do you not see that it is precisely this type of arrogance, the same type of arrogance that many Christians rightly get accused of, that turns people off? Even if you were correct, which you aren't, it just makes me not want to listen to anything you say. Yea, I used to be just like you, it took me a long time to figure out that people don't take well to perceived arrogance.

so you've only succeeded in proving that you don't know what the "contemporary" means. Good work.

Contemporary, meaning of the same time period as we are discussing. The same lifetimes of the followers of Jesus Christ.

but none actually prove anything other than that there may have been a guy that had some followers

Well, thank you for conceding what I have been trying to say, what this stupid argument is all about. I thought you said that there was NO evidence that he was a real person, now you kind of back track a little? That's all I'm saying, Brad, is that the evidence shows that Jesus really did walk the earth, had followers, and was killed by the authorities. Yes, there were many others who claimed to be the Messiah as well and were also killed. That is not the argument of most historians, why are you making is such? The real argument is whether or not Jesus was different than all the other so called Messiahs by actually being the Messiah who rose from the grave on the third day. I can show you respect and understanding for holding to that belief,but for you to come here and claim that he was not a real person, then when I show you evidence, to just say, "Oh, well all that shows is that he might have been an actual person, with followers". Bingo, ding ding ding!! Give the man a prize.

I believe Wikipedia is accurate in their articles and provides the mechanisms for editing. If there is something you find innacurate in anything I quoted, by all means go to Wikipedia and change it. Also, the article question, quoted from those scholars of which we are speaking.

Brad, brad, there are thousands of historical figures that we know about through less sources than we have for Jesus, and many that wrote nothing themselves. Socrates wrote nothing himself and the ONLY contemporary source for anything he said is Plato's Dialogues and they are not even really contemporary because they were written after Socrates drank the poison. Do you doubt Socrates existence? I bet not. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great and most other historical figures. Do you doubt their existence? I bet not. I'm wondering what YOU mean by contemporary. I know what most people mean. Most people understand that if something was written during the lifetime of one of Jesus followers, which all of the New Testament was, then that is contemporary. By that criteria a lot of the sources I provided were contemporary. If you mean written before Jesus died, well like I said you have no contemporary sources for Socrates either. But I'm sure consistency is not your strong suit.

photographic evidence? Oh, so we can't believe that anyone who ever lived before the age of the photographic, really lived?

I find it highly telling of your character that you are going to put me on your ignore list simply for disagreeing with you. What in the HELL are you doing on Newsvine? Pray tell. Because everyone who disagrees with your holiness is going to the ignore list. You're sad, Brad, you truly are. At first, for several days here, I thought we were having quite a good discussion, but then you took it to an entirely different level by calling me ignorant and threatening to put me on your ignore list. I really don't care if you do so, be my guest, but don't claim to be open minded in the same breath.

How you went from this:

If you can find a single contemporary source of evidence for the existence of Jesus (not even the resurrection, just his EXISTENCE), you will have proven my statement wrong, and I will both retract my statement, and personally apologize, as well as never confront you on any bull@!$%# you bring up in the future.

to this:

but none actually prove anything other than that there may have been a guy that had some followers

And then lash out at me calling me ignorant is beyond me. It's almost as if the conversation went like this.

You: Jesus was not a real man. Me: providing sources
You: Well, yea but all that proves is that he might have been a real man. Oh, and you're ignorant too and going on my ignore list.

Good riddance, dude, if this is the way you like to argue.

It's all called circumstantial evidence, Brad. People have been sent to death row on less circumstantial evidence than there is for Jesus real existence. If you are waiting until every single scholar agrees that he existed, until every single piece of evidence corroborates it, well you will be waiting a long time, are waiting for something that can NEVER exist, and are being hypocritical when it comes to many other things in which you believe with no problems. In short, you DON"T want to believe that he was a real person and despite the evidence you are gonna stick to it. "That's your story and you're sticking to it." But that's not very honest now is it? It doesn't really show you to be a man of integrity now does it? And it really strikes me as quite odd that you would want to deny his real existence anyway, as it really has nothing to do with his divinity. He could have been a real man and still not been divine. You could have argued that he was a real man, who preached his message, obtained followers, preached a revolutionary message that got him killed, and that's the end of the story, but you didn't. Instead you want to make this ludicrous assertion that he never even existed. I guess it's because then it makes it easy for you to then to discount his divinity if he never even existed, it's actually pretty cowardly if you ask me, instead of admit that he was probably a real man, but that you don't believe in his divinity, you instead want to take the easy route, to cut off all argument at the bud, so that you won't have to get into the religious discussions. That's fine, as I said, you can do that, but don't claim to be the one on the moral high ground here, and ridicule me for being the ignorant and intolerant one. I'm only speaking my mind here, and this is my article, you are the one being intolerant. And it's exactly your kind of intolerance that makes me not want to have anything to do with your Atheist kind. You want to talk about the arrogance of Christians. My friend, you have taken arrogance to a whole new level.

Brad, I clicked on your link and it still looks like a cross to me. Look at the real electron microscope photos as well, looks like a cross.

As to the orientation of the hubble image, if you turn it around it still looks like a cross, turn it 180 degrees and it looks like an upside down cross, turn in 90 degrees, a sideways cross, my point is that it still looks like a cross, and my other point is that the way it IS oriented in this image is the way it is oriented on the NASA web page, it is probably the way it came back from the telescope to them.

Brad, while you are correct in that people see what they want to see, they also fail to see what they don't want to see. Also, optical illusions are VERY different from the example of laminin, or the Whirlpool Galaxy photo. Those are not optical illusions, but are in fact there. The interpretation of what it means, if anything, is what we are talking about. No one can deny that laminin's molecular structure is in the shape of a cross, or that the hubble telescope did in fact shoot a photo of the center of that galaxy with a cross in the middle. That's not open for debate, what is, is how you choose to interpret it, and as you said, people see what they want to see, or don't want to see.

Brad, the molecular structure, as seen in any Biology book is in the shape of a cross. This hubble telescope image clearly shows a cross. What is up for debate is if it's just coincidence or not. You can seriously tell me with a straight face that you don't see a cross in that Hubble image.

Well peace be unto you then. We have taken this about as far as we can take it between you and I. I think there is religious significance, you don't. That's fine!!

As I said though, I do appreciate how you were able to discuss this civilly and with respect. Not all here were able to do so. Some would just rather scoff and make fun of the religious. You engaged me civilly and while we don't agree, I respect your position.

Thanks, butterfly,
I'd have to research it more but I don't think laminin is found in plants, only animals.

Yes God could have put his symbols all over the world, for all peoples.

If by Allah, you mean God, sure it does!! Muslims, Jews and Christians are all children of Abraham, and all worship the same God. The other two reject Jesus as the Son of God, though.

Look, I've been saying all along that I am not here to offer you proof. Evidence is abundant. You have to find God for yourself, but you have to do so with an open mind AND, probably even more importantly, an open heart!!

So, I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion here with you. I could but I'm not. I've read tons of books on the subject. As I said, for most of my adult I've been an Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and everything in between. I know all the arguments for and against the existence of God. That's why I'm not interested in it anymore. For me it's not about proof, it's about our hearts and it's about changed lives.

I just got back from my new church, C3church.org, for the second time. Last week was the first time I attended church of any kind in years. And I have to tell you that I feel terrific!!

Watch these Baptism videos from my church. Just watch the first one if you are pressed for time, it will start automatically. It is a neat little video put together showing Baptisms in the last couple months and the power of God to change lives. THIS is what it is all about. Ask these people on the video to prove that their God exists, and they will laugh!! It's not about proof!!! If you're looking for slam dunk proof, you're never gonna find it. I know, I've been searching for that proof for years. Then I show up at this church and for some reason break out crying right there in the pews.

And I'm not even saying it CAN'T be proven. It most certainly CAN be proven within each individual heart. What I'm saying is that it's not even ABOUT proof. We are talking two entirely different languages here. You keep asking me to prove it to you, I'm telling you to prove it for yourself whether it's true or not. Read the Bible yourself with an open heart and mind, go to a spirit filled church and tell me that you feel nothing. You're asking for proof, I'm telling you that I can't give you the proof you seek, no one can except yourself and a heartfelt search on your part. But you have to search for God with an open mind, if you set out on that search believing the whole time that there is no God, well you are not gonna find him.

You can argue all day, Brad, in the end, you're just gonna have to search for God on your own. All I'm saying is that if you're waiting for slam dunk proof of his existence before you will believe then you will never believe. The proof does exist, Brad, don't misunderstand me, I'm just saying that the proof resides in your heart, not in your mind. Wanna know the funny thing about that statement? It took me almost my whole adult life so far, I'm 35 now, to realize this.

Very occasionally I will say things that strike even me, yesterday I said something either here or in another thread that struck me as very profound. I'm not bragging though, because I don't feel that it came from me, it was inspired. I'll make that statement here again, and I believe in the absolute truth of this statement:

It's not about how much information you can fill your head with, it's about how much love you can fill your heart with.

That right there is what believing in Jesus Christ is all about. That's it.

The very fact that Muslims and Jews deny Christ is where my disagreement begins. How can you worship God when you deny who he has revealed Himself to be. Indeed they do trace themselves to Abraham as the father of many nations. They do claim to worship the God of Abraham. But they don't. Paul in New Testament teaches that the true children of Abraham are those of faith.

I agree, I was just trying to be accomodating I guess, but you're right. It is no small thing that they deny Christ but I guess I didn't want to get into a theological discussion with some of these guys.

And thanks for your kind words, I appreciate it, there are way too few people on Newsvine like you.

By the way, Muslims don't "deny" Christ. He is one of their Great Prophets.

They deny that Jesus Christ is and was who he said he was, the Son of God. They do not even believe he actually died on the cross. In this sense, they believe in Jesus as a prophet but not as the Christ.

glad, in all seriousness, you can pick up a New Testament for yourself. I don't mean to be rude, I hope I'm not coming off that way, but seriously, why do you want us to do your research for you? Just pick up the New Testament and read the first four books, what are commonly referred to as the Gospels.

Ok, I'll give you a few to whet your appetite:

# Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
Matthew 26:62-64 (in Context) Matthew 26 (Whole Chapter)
# Matthew 27:40
and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"
Matthew 27:39-41 (in Context) Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter)
# Matthew 27:43
He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "
Matthew 27:42-44 (in Context) Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter)

These show that the religious authorities definitely got the message that he was claiming to be the Son of God.

But you want the show stopper?!

Luke 22:70
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus's words above in John 3:16.

# John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
John 3:16-18 (in Context) John 3 (Whole Chapter)
# John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

In case you thought that maybe Jesus was only claiming to be A Son of God and not THE Son of God.

Do you need me to continue? I could, it's all over the New Testament and in the red words too.

You asked for sources. They are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!! Read them, you may be amazed to learn that what the Gospels say and what you have been taught that they say are two entirely different things. Jesus most definitely DID in fact claim to be both the Son of God and God himself. He said, "I and the Father are one." He said, "Before the beginning of the world, I AM!" That statement I AM has to be understood in the Greek, for it is the ancient Hebrew way of naming God. God's name was I AM and that name was supposed to be unuttered. It was blasphemous, according to the Jewish Authorities, for him to claim to be God and to use that name. Unless.... unless he really was God and then of course, it's not blasphemous at all, but the truth!

That's cool, like I said I didn't mean to be rude at all. I hope that both I and EPH have been able to start you on your journey. There is ample evidence, and I believe that it is more than clear, that Jesus did in fact claim to be both the Son of God and God himself. One can say that they don't believe that he was who he said he was, but a reading of the New Testament will show who he in fact claimed himself to be.

Another passage just came to mind as well:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

After a second reading of the above passage, I see as well, that it shows the falsity of Islam claiming him to be just a prophet. Notice, Peter answered... some say one of the prophets. Then Jesus asked, "Well who do you say that I am?" and Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

That's why Islam is patently wrong from the very beginning. I will remind you also that in Revelations I believe, it is said that if anyone comes after and preaches anything different from what they have already been taught by Jesus and the disciples, they are not to listen to them, that they are false teachers, false prophets. Remember, Islam came a few hundred years AFTER the death of Christ, and when it did, it had several things to say different from what Jesus and the disciples taught. All the way back to the Old Testament, Muslims claim that the Old Testament is sacred to them as well, yet they claim, in the Koran, that it was Ishmael, and NOT Isaac, that Abraham was told to sacrifice. If you read the story, Ishmael was a totally different son of Abraham and since the Old Testament came many many hundreds of years before the Koran, you can bet which one I'm gonna believe, especially in light of what the Bible later says about those teaching things different from we have already been taught.

Jim, Isn't God, as described in the Bible, omniscient?! That means he knows everything, everything that is ever going to happen in the future. Do you think that the crucifixion of Jesus was just an afterthought? "Oops, I put Adam and Eve in the Garden, but they disobeyed me, now what?!" Do you think anything or anyone could ever throw God for a loop?! He knew from the very beginning, and to me this shows his magnificent love, that his creation would rebel, he giving us free will to do so. He also knew in advance what his plan was. His plan was from the beginning. "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." from the very opening lines of John's Gospel. So he knew, even before creation, even before he first spoke, "Let there by light" what his plan was, and his plan was that he himself would take the punishment for man's disobedience. He knew that he was going to come to earth in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, and die on a Roman Cross. So yes, he created that Whirlpool galaxy, knowing full well the whole entire scope of human history and the history of his redemptive plan. So no, it wasn't just on a hunch, Jim. God doesn't operate on hunches, but on perfect knowledge.

Really think about this for a minute. Seriously!! Ponder on what it means. God wanted to create humanity to love and fellowship with him, but he knew from the very beginning what a terrible, horrible cost he would have to pay. Why? Because of free will. If there was no free will, and he just created as robots, mere automatons, then the cross would not have been necessary at all. He knew, before he created us, how painful it would ultimately be to him. But he did so anyway!! That is love my friend!!!

It's ALMOST like when a woman decides to have a baby, knowing full well how painful the process is going to be, but she wants a family and a baby to love and adore and to raise as her own. It's kind of like that, but a gazillion times more than that.

That's cool, Jim. No hard feelings at all. I think we have had a great discussion and you brought up a question that many probably have had. You gave us the opportunity to expound on what we see as God's love and his omniscience. I don't think that you hate Christians and I don't think that I ever accused of such.

You are right that these discussions usually don't lead to anyone changing their minds but once again, it's like the parable in the Bible about planting a seed. I have been an Atheist/Agnostic for many many years, after growing up in the church and being saved and Baptized as a young boy. But the Holy Spirit, or my conscience, if you would like to call it that, has always been there telling me that what I learned as a young boy was in fact true, and I'd like to think that a lot of people who loved me, planted seeds that might not have seemed to grow at all at the time, but in due time, they did come to fruition. I might not have changed your mind today, but just maybe, 5, 10 or 15 years from now, you might remember something that I or other fellow Christians said here today that you had never heard before. Maybe.. or maybe not! Who knows, but it can't hurt to have discussions like this, especially when they remain civil.

Merry Christmas to you too, bud!!

Nope, not kidding, but thanks for your sympathy. It's just not needed. Once again, I never claimed that this PROVES God's existence, it's just a beautiful piece of evidence. You know what I'm embarrassed about? The way you and a few of your Atheist friends have been acting on this thread! Instead of taking part in a fruitful discussion, as some of us have been doing, you have chosen instead to mock and ridicule!!

Yep, that little thing called coinkydink!!! To an Atheist everything is just coinkydink!!!

My answer to that question, is that any individual case could very well be just a coincidence,but when you add up all the different coincidences, they can't all be coincidence. For example, how did we get here. Evolutionist Atheists would have you believe that the million of coincidences required for us as humans to be here on this planet today all add up to one big great coincidence. To those of us of faith that is asking a bit too much. For us, it takes more faith to believe that then it does to believe that God is the creator of it all. All those coincidences don't add up to just mere coincidence, that's ludicrous, it adds up to a divine creator. That's why I said that for an Atheist, everything is just coinkydink!!! It has to be. For if they admit that even just one of the "coincidences" in their long chain of "coincidences" for us to be here might not be a coincidence, well then their entire stack of cards falls to the ground and then they would have to admit that there just might be a God out there who cares for them.

For example, everything in the universe, or at least in our little corner of it, seems to be fine tuned for our existence here on Earth. Atheists call it coincidence, that if the fine tuning didn't exist we wouldn't be here. Seems like a circular way of saying those of faith are right. I'll just give you a couple examples from the top of my head. The moon couldn't be any closer or further away for life to exist on Earth as it does. We couldn't be any closer or further away from the Sun in order for life to exist on Earth. I could go on and on. Think about that. All these things tend to show fine tuning. Now the Atheists want you to believe that it's all just a great big cosmic accident. Coinkydink!!! That's what they worship!! Coinkydink!!! To me, it's too much, they call it reason, but it's not reasonable at all.

Heck, even global warming is showing that just a few degrees change in our Earth's temperature could have drastic effects for life on Earth. This shows more fine tuning. Now come on, really, just those three I mentioned, the position of the moon, in relation to us, our distance from the Sun, and the temperature of Earth. All of that seems like too much coinkydink for me!!

You think there are too many coincidences to not draw the conclusion that there is something behind these coincidences, something intelligent that brings life into being under the circumstances that have been created for this purpose?

Exactly!!!

An alternative (and only one) is that life itself is intelligent

Life itself is intelligent and made in the image and likeness of God, that's why life itself IS intelligent. But.. and this is a big but.. life can not create itself. Even lichens which you mention come from somewhere, seeds or a germ cell or something, it does not just spontaneously grow on shrubs and bushes.

Even our attachment to the symbol of the cross could be explained by saying that it has that significance because of the all-important role that laminin plays in the cohesion of cells that we are.

I think you are ALMOST saying what I have already said. laminin plays an all important role in the cohesion of the cells, and I quoted from Scripture which says, "that in him, all things hold together." There are obviously those that think it just another coincidence that this laminin which basically holds us together, is in the shape of a cross. I don't think it is coincidence but the fingerprint of God himself. Remember what we said earlier, God had foreknowledge before the creation of the world that he would come to earth in the form of Jesus Christ and die on a cross.

You ask some very good questions and I appreciate the way you are able to do so in a civil and respectful tone. There are a few here who could take some lessons from you. There are some who have a lot of anger towards religion in general and Christianity in particular, I was once one of those people. You don't seem to be one of those people. You ask your questions from a generally inquisitive and seeking heart. That's good, because Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be answered unto you, knock and it shall be opened" Notice that, contrary to popular belief about Christianity, Jesus never told anyone not to ask questions. Quite the contrary.

Ok, well it's just a coincidence then that your brain cells caused you to form the thoughts which formed the comment you just made. Just coincidence and therefore no meaning, therefore no reason to respond. Everything's coinkydink, remember? Cool, glad we're on the same page!

It hasn't, sorry. But I have to go to work and don't have the time to explain it any further to you. YOu don't believe, I do, that's about the bottom line. Have a nice evening!!

Are you sure you're not a Christian? ha ha .

That's cool, I could just tell from the things you said that you did in fact have Christian influences.

But to make sure that I understand you, are you suggesting that you are a Catholic, yet you don't actually believe the stories that the Catholic Church or the Bible tells? What constitutes a Catholic or a Christian then, in your opinion, if not belief, in at least the Gospel story?

Well I tend to think that God came to earth in the form of his Son, Jesus Christ so that we COULD know him. Without that, you're right, we can't know him.

Thomas Aquinas was a great man, probably one of the most intelligent men in all of history. I think though that he did believe in the literal crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. IMO, that is the crux, the basis of Christianity, if one doesn't believe that Jesus rose again on the third day, then they are not really Christians.

As far as the Catholic Church having you if they had you to the age of 5, there is always the Protestants. Personally, I couldn't imagine being a Catholic, because I am a child of the Reformation and fully believe in why they broke away from the Catholic Church, I believe fully that the Bible is the Word of God and think that the Catholics incorporated a lot of tradition into their worship that is not in the Bible. Confession, praying to Mary,etc, etc.

Well I disagree, I think that there is such a thing as the proverbial fingerprint of God and Laminin is part of it. As is the photo of the Whirlpool Galaxy.

But as to convincing other people of the truth of God, I wholeheartedly agree that it is impossible for us, but for God all things are possible. We can plant seeds that God can turn to fruition. Everyone must find God on their own, in their own individual hearts. I can't do that for them. It's their journey.

And also if you put all the necessary ingredients for life in a test tube and leave it for billions of years, it will NEVER form even a single solitary cell of life. Scientists have NEVER been able to duplicate it, they just say it happened.

I thought it was quite brilliant myself, xf, even if you don't, no need to be rude about it.

Let me ask you Evolutionists a serious question, don't be rude and call me ignorant, if I'm ignorant and you know the answer feel free. This is something I've been thinking of, it's kind of a which came first, the chicken or the egg conundrum.

Let's imagine we are observing the very first life on earth forming, supposedly billions of years ago. For the sake of argument, I will assume everything they say is true. Now, let's imagine that very first primitive cell forming out of the primordial soup. Never mind that no scientist today has ever been able to duplicate this in the lab. Not one of them has ever been able to create even the simplest of life forms, from non-life. Just hasn't happened. But back to our imaginations, this very first primitive cell, when it formed, did it possess the ability to reproduce itself already? If not then it would have just died and no future primitive cells would have been reproduced. We're back to square one. Now here is the conundrum you are faced with, if the first cell did NOT contain the ability to reproduce then how did subsequent primitive cells get this ability if it was admittedly not genetically passed down? See the problem? If it did have the ability, then that was surely a quantum leap in the history of the universe, not only did a primitive cell form itself out of non-life, carbon is lifeless, but it also possessed the millions of DNA along with the ability to pass it along to it's offspring. I just find this extremely hard to believe. Even if you could prove to me that Evolution is a fact, you can NEVER explain to me how it all started. Where did the DNA come from? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? DNA or the life that contained it? DNA is itself lifeless, would DNA just form outside of any cell, outside of any life form? for what purpose? How? It seems to me that life had to exist first, for their to be DNA but then again without DNA there could be no life. To me it all just makes absolutely no sense and requires much more faith to believe than for me to believe that God started it all, that God made the animals and man with DNA already residing within them along with the ability to pass it along to their offspring via reproduction.

Any takers?

Well, Dennis, proceed up to my most recent comment and explain away. Care to try?

So you believe that God snapped His fingers and said "Hey, I'll make humans!"?

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So you believe that God snapped His fingers and said "Hey, I'll make humans!"?

Then God said, "Oh, snap!!"

i'm suprised phaedreus hasn't condemned me to hell yet.

Why would I do that? if that is the only kind of Christian you know, then no wonder you don't know much about true Christianity, the love of Christ.

I believe in the Bible, but I believe a lot of it is allegorical, not literal. For instance the entire story of Adam and Eve and eating the forbidden fruit should obviously be read allegorically. I also don't believe in a literal hell as a place of eternal fire and torment. I just can not reconcile that notion with the notion of a loving and just God. Are there Christians who preach fire and brimstone? Of course there are. But with the arrival of a new Generation, they are fast becoming a dying breed.

I'll write another part of my current Christianity series about this topic, but suffice to say that I should be considered as a liberal Christian, not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

I've been attending, for about the past month, what is considered one of the new fangled, "seeker friendly" mega churches in my area. We have a rock praise band and everything. They are conservative in most of their theology but liberal in their approach. I've been there for about a month and I've never even heard the word Hell mentioned. I've heard a lot of, "God loves you and wants a relationship with you." and stuff like that. I've heard a lot of things like, "Jesus loves you and wants to forgive you and wants to bless your life." No mention of hell if you don't comply. A lot of the fundamentalist churches don't like churches for this very reason, thinking them too liberal and that they are watering down the message but I think they are the ones who are wrong. I've written about this elsewhere and will write entire articles about it, but I think the progressive churches are bringing millions of young people to the Lord.

While I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I do NOT believe that it is always to be taken literally, but instead a lot of times allegorically. The Holy Spirit and good ol' common sense will tell one which is which. For instance, the Adam and Eve story about Eve being created from a rib of Adam's. Allegory. Eve being tempted by the snake to eat the forbidden fruit and then her tempting Adam in turn. Allegory!! Even the Exodus story of the Israelites crossing over the Red Sea on dry land. Allegory. The plauges God sent on Egypt when Pharoah refused to "let my people go." Allegory!! Jonah in the belly of the whale for 3 days, could be true, there is nothing really all that fantastical about this story. See, a lot of the Bible stories, it doesn't really matter if they literally happened or not, they are like the parables of Jesus, stories told in order to expound a moral lesson. Or like the story of Johah, meant to foreshadow Jesus being in the belly of the tomb for 3 days.

The story of Jesus, while there may be parts that are allegorical as well, most of it is true, or else the faith itself crumbles. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Note, that if Jesus was God, then the resurrection is not anything really all that fantastical. If God created the heavens and the Earth and man as well, then is it really all that crazy to believe that he could raise people and even himself from the dead? I don't think so.

Hell, there is much debate in Christian stories, whether or not this should be seen as a literal place of fire and brimstone, of eternal suffering and pain, of "wailing and nashing of teeth" or whether it just means eternal separation from God. Personally, I can NOT reconcile the notion of a literal hell being a place of eternal torment, a place of literal unquenchable fire, with that of a loving and just God. I just can not. And it was precisely this and several other things that caused me to leave Christianity to begin with all those years ago. I was raised in a fundamentalist church, taken there mostly by my Great Grandparents, and while I love them dearly, I do not and can not agree with all of their theology. I remember being a child in church being terrified listening to the preacher rant and rave, yelling and screaming at the congregation, usually with spittle drooling down his lips, about hell fire. These were what are called fire and brimstone preachers. There were and are many people who think these are powerful men of God. I don't think so, I think they were and are dealing in fear. I was scared to death as a child listening to this. I had a dream once, as a young pre-teen, where I heard a huge explosion in my head, and I shot up in the bed, thinking it was real, thinking that the lord had returned, that it was the end of the world and that I was not ready. I eventually rebelled against this theology and eventually became an Atheist. Then over the years, I became an Agnostic on the way back to being a Christian. What allowed me to return is the realization over the years, that even though I once thought that I was, I was never actually rebelling against Jesus, but against fundamentalism. It was fundamentalism that I had such a huge problem, not Jesus. I think many people would do well to realize this when they criticize Christianity and Christians. We don't worship Christians but Christ. It's not about fallible human beings but about Christ. It's about his message. As an analogy, almost everyone agrees today that George Bush has been a terrible President, that he has broken the Constitution that he swore to uphold, but no intelligent person would take from this fallible and wrongheaded human being, that the United States itself is corrupt, or that this is an indictment of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. That is what we revere as Americans, not any individual President. We can even impeach individual Presidents when they stray too far from our ideals, as put forth in the Constitution, as Bush should have been a long time ago. If anyone were to say that all one has to do to see how corrupt the founding fathers were by looking at Bush, they would be laughed off the stage. Why then are people allowed to do the same thing to Christianity? It's not about any individual Christian and how fallen or evil individuals or even the Church itself has been. It's about Christ. It was precisely because the Church HAD strayed so far away from Christ's original teachings that the Reformation took place. Martin Luther had many problems with the Catholic Church, 95 problems in fact, as stated in his 95 Theses. He realized that it was precisely BECAUSE of Christ's original message that he ultimately had to break away from the Church.

. Does this mean we should find some Jewish meaning here?

I'm sure there would be those who would say yes, we should. Most notably, the Jews.

What about the hubble telescope photo of the center of the Whirlpool Galaxy? If you actually look at it, you can even see a figure, presumably the figure of Jesus, hanging on it. You don't have to squint either to see it, it's pretty plain. Is this just another coincidence? I'm sure that the center of this galaxy doesn't look like this at all times, I'm not saying that. I'm sure this was a once in a lifetime occurence, the interplay of light rays, whatever. But the Bible says that in the end days he will show signs in the heavens. Just sayin'!!

Thank you Edward, it is comments like that that help give me the inspiration to keep fighting another day.

Who is this comment directed at? Hopefully, not I.