State-Church Separation

[ApocalypticaGM]

ActRaiserTheReturned said
You are incapable of seeing very much of God, just like I am. I am no better than you. You are no better than me. Neither of us, no matter how moral, smart, dumb or wicked are enough different from each other to be good by God's standards. That's because God is infinitely better than all of our entire species combined. He sees things as they are, and sees infinitely into not just our present, past and mortal future condition, but infinitely into the great beyond. Possibly even beyond time as we know it. We see God as a germ could possibly comprehend the body of a man immune to disease. There's nothing we can do to comprehend it, but we are a part of his body, like um. . . necessary bacteria, as it were. (Being metaphorical here). This man is a brilliant scientist intelligent enough to transform us into a man from the singular cell we are. Our only requirement for venturing into the great unknown is to board his nano-machine vessels before we are eaten away by the white blood cells! ;)Hitler tried to kill God by killing many of his poor innocent bacteria, and incited a war against valiant white blood cells in a bid for bodily conquest! Fortunately God's white blood cells rid the vile Hitler of his evil menace! Sadly though, the time for a bacteria's life span is very short. The only way for us to live forever, is to enter into the nano-machines. If we don't enter into the nano-machine ships, we get thrown up! :(Thus, we end up living in the eternal hell of the sewers forever!

Just going out on a limb here and going to say that speaking from the perspective of a believer may not be how you win any minds and hearts here, Act. It's not about stigma, but about how you're entering this discussions. There's difference between a debate and trying to convince people. See, one has points that can be analysed and dissected to really get where the speaker is coming from. That one means you have to open yourself to having your mind changed, to be vulnerable, basically. The latter, in this context. is more just speaking about your values and other hard-set aspects to you that you have no intention of developing your perspective on. First off, that's fine you have those. I'm glad you've found things so meaningful to you you've made them a cornerstone to your identity. However, when you speak to others about topics, especially about a faith-community of a culture far disconnected from the Western world, it makes your arguments less clear. The debate becomes 'this fact because of the fact is declared' rather than 'this fact, because of evidence, because of this line of logical thinking'. To be super clear, you're talking to someone who has steeped themselves in study about Judeo-Christian iconography and scripture. I am a Universalist with a very deep passion for learning about how other faith-communities, I believe we all have personal journeys that take on many appearances and rituals, but are ultimately, ours. Whether or not three people share the same religious label, how they perceive this 'unfathomable' body is rarely exactly the same. Yeshua* spoke in parables not because he was incapable of direct statements, but because the path to your answer is perhaps just as important as the conclusion (if not more). So that said, religion is extremely individual despite some being quite large. It is extremely difficult to make an argument based on your faith not because faith is not fact, but because it's so steeped in your identity and experiences that we cannot really wholly understand your thinking there -- it's yours.

And hey, just throwing this out there, God is actually pretty understandable if you're studying cultural context and surrounding faith-communities. I spent some time with this topic while in undergrad and found it stimulating, but I also never chalked it up to unfathomable. That probably helped my resolve. I'll hider the rest of this because, while it's definitely the short version, it's still pretty long.

ReligionIsAboutYou

First, let's just acknowledge that the Christian God and Jewish God are very different. The Jewish God was described in dozens of ways by the many nomadic Hebraic traditions kept solely through oral tradition for much of time. By the time pen hit paper, things had solidified significantly. So you have a lot of perspectives and descriptions of God, mostly based off their experiences, expectations, and needs. These all pooled together eventually. The Jewish God was a reflection of cultural principles, desires, and also analysing of other faith-communities. Judaism was never alone, and the presence of other communities had deep ramifications on the text (such as an introduction of the Haasatan, for example). Meanwhile, the Christian God was built with hindsight and extreme exposure to other cultures. Remember, Yeshua was a Jew born under Roman Occupation to a community respected, but also threatened by the empire. Others were crucified under the name 'Messiah', I mean hey, this was a title given a handful of times already in the OT for you close readers. So, Christianity came about with pressure, without the respect of their Jewish predecessors since they rejected occupation a bit more tooth-and-nail, but also after Greek philosophy had time to do its work. See, Greek thinking was exposed to the Jews way earlier, but even if something speaks against your faith, centuries of exposure works on you. Both sides change(d). Christianity's earliest texts, and this is directly visible in the Synoptic Books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & [I Include Thomas]). Some books are distinctly written for Jewish communities long detached from their roots with terms and language built off Greek traditions instead (I believe it's Luke, perhaps, that actually has to explain some of the Jewish stories, as if they don't know, because they probably don't). Others were geared toward long-time Jews still connected. How they approached God in these contexts was, once again, a reflection for how society had developed and the thinking they were exposed to. Early theologians like Origen and even Augustine note these connections to Greek philosophy in their own understanding of God and Christianity. Just remember that Christianity has been in flux since its existence. What it is today is vastly different than how it began. Imagery and emphasis on the Christ dying was not a focus for a little over 200 years, probably because Christians suffered shifting levels of acceptance and condemnation in that time and it was more useful to focus on the good of the narrative than the death. Revelations was not written or accepted for around a century after the Christ passed, so those reading in the earlier bunch probably had a pretty different experience than those who came later. We should also consider those who appreciated the Jewish story behind the loaves and fishes that offered pretext to the NT story. The point here is that religion changes, Christianity especially, and that God with it. You're not trying to shed light on some scientific discovery here, you're trying to understand the principles of your people and how you value the world. But that's impossible, beyond you, because we have more than 6 billion human lives on this world, and if you think it's hard to understand their principles, try that for all the people have lived until now. That's what you're trying to do. Christianity disconnected itself from the culture that defined its stories and become a religion adoptable even with poor understanding of the Jewish foundation. So your job is a lot bigger now, a lot harder, because you don't have that foundational understanding. So maybe arguing from the point of faith is actually very difficult, because we could not possibly imagine your one perspective on it.

So no, God is not unfathomable because of outstanding morality or some immeasurable greatness, but because our perspective of who God is constantly changing as we as a people do. Religion is personal. Religion is a reflection of us as we think on it, on what we have experienced, and any deities or principles we pay reverence to speaks more about our personal values than the nature of the point we choose to focus on. It's like Gat said, and more, the problem with basing things on the Bible is that it's extremely outdated, but not just because of time, but because most Christians don't know the history of their religion or where the beliefs originate from. It's not really a big religion so much as a great many personal interpretations maybe based on the text, maybe based on what you've been raised or told about over the years.

[So Boerd]

If God can't do something then it's not all powerful, so your God/Bible is lying or once again as Brovo says, the author had another loop hole.

That would depend on the definition of all powerful. The definition I gave, that God has all powers which exist sounds much closer to all powerful than omnipotence.

He's not telling you what you believe. He's telling you what the Bible and your God has said.

And sorry to break it to you, but your Bible is Christianity. The religion was absolutely nothing to stand on if not the Bible.
If you're going to argue away, dismiss, disagree with the Bible etc then you are effectly arguing and disagreeing with Christianity and your God.

Context here is helpful. I was responding to a link he gave to some generic non-dom Christian page offering an opinion I do not share about Hell.

Show me once where I have dismissed the Bible? I have merely said other truths about God exist outside it.

Science even admits it doesn't know things. But it at least gives evidence and proof upfront for what it does know (or has the clearest idea on).
While God is literally not giving out any proof or evidence and just expecting you to believe, and them complicates it with not only all the proof/evidence towards science, but allowing thousands of other religions to exist which all operate on the exact same logic and arguments you are.

What is the minimum standard of evidence for you to accept God?

[The Nexerus]

Gat said
The fundamental problem with taking the bible and most other holy books at face value is simple really. They're outdated.They were god knows how many years ago (pardon the pun) in a time where cultures were vastly different. On top of that language and our understanding of the world around us has evolved considerably since then, to even try and take them at face value these days is simple folly, which unfortunately is something alot of people do.

*a lot

But I agree for the most part.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

ShonHarris said
Just going out on a limb here and going to say that speaking from the perspective of a believer may not be how you win any minds and hearts here, Act. It's not about stigma, but about how you're entering this discussions. There's difference between a debate and trying to convince people. See, one has points that can be analysed and dissected to really get where the speaker is coming from. That one means you have to open yourself to having your mind changed, to be vulnerable, basically. The latter, in this context. is more just speaking about your values and other hard-set aspects to you that you have no intention of developing your perspective on. First off, that's fine you have those. I'm glad you've found things so meaningful to you you've made them a cornerstone to your identity. However, when you speak to others about topics, especially about a faith-community of a culture far disconnected from the Western world, it makes your arguments less clear. The debate becomes 'this fact because of the fact is declared' rather than 'this fact, because of evidence, because of this line of logical thinking'. To be super clear, you're talking to someone who has steeped themselves in study about Judeo-Christian iconography and scripture. I am a Universalist with a very deep passion for learning about how other faith-communities, I believe we all have personal journeys that take on many appearances and rituals, but are ultimately, . Whether or not three people share the same religious label, how they perceive this 'unfathomable' body is rarely exactly the same. Yeshua* spoke in parables not because he was incapable of direct statements, but because the path to your answer is perhaps just as important as the conclusion (if not more). So that said, religion is extremely individual despite some being quite large. It is extremely difficult to make an argument based on your faith not because faith is not fact, but because it's so steeped in your identity and experiences that we cannot really wholly understand your thinking there -- it's yours. And hey, just throwing this out there, God is actually pretty understandable if you're studying cultural context and surrounding faith-communities. I spent some time with this topic while in undergrad and found it stimulating, but I also never chalked it up to unfathomable. That probably helped my resolve. I'll hider the rest of this because, while it's definitely the short version, it's still pretty long. So no, God is not unfathomable because of outstanding morality or some immeasurable greatness, but because our perspective of who God is constantly changing as we as a people do. Religion is personal. Religion is a reflection of us as we think on it, on what we have experienced, and any deities or principles we pay reverence to speaks more about our personal values than the nature of the point we choose to focus on. It's like Gat said, and more, the problem with basing things on the Bible is that it's extremely outdated, but not just because of time, but because most Christians don't know the history of their religion or where the beliefs originate from. It's not really a big religion so much as a great many personal interpretations maybe based on the text, maybe based on what you've been raised or told about over the years.

Well, God doesn't change because people think he does. That's. Just. Your opinion man. I'm telling you what the Gospel is and who God is. That's my only job. Not to convince you of anything.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So Boerd said That would depend on the definition of all powerful. The definition I gave, that God has all powers which exist sounds much closer to all powerful than omnipotence.

But these powers still leave him with things he is unable to do.

Technically you are correct in that he would have all the powers, but if he still even then lacks the power to do certain things then he isn't all powerful since there ware areas he lacks power in.

So Boerd said Context here is helpful. I was responding to a link he gave to some generic non-dom Christian page offering an opinion I do not share about Hell.Show me once where I have dismissed the Bible? I have merely said other truths about God exist outside it.

---

So Boerd said
"Not believing in him is sufficient punishment to be sent to hell even if you're a girl scout supporting nurse who sacrifices everything to save babies. Don't believe in god? Go to hell. Again, immoral. Again, not worth worship, even if he did exist."Not actually true.

1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".

Acts 3:19 "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord".

So Boerd said
He created souls, not what they were composed of. Intelligence, the essence of YOU, was not made by Him. The soul, your incorporeal form and how you interface with reality, was created by Him.

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

So Boerd said
I believe I just said He didn't create everything.Now, when you're done telling me what I believe, rather than asking, we can continue.Also, citation from Genesis?

Colossions 1: 16 "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him".

John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made".

---

So Boerd said What is the minimum standard of evidence for you to accept God?

First you need to prove there is a God that exists, which basically mean having more evidence than science has... and at the moment Religion has 0 so you really need to get working on that. :P
But even then all you have established is that a God exist, not which god. So once you did that, you also need to prove out of the countless religions that exist that yours in the right one.

[Gwazi Magnum]

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Well, God doesn't change because people think he does. That's. Just. Your opinion man. I'm telling you what the Gospel is and who God is. That's my only job. Not to convince you of anything.

Except me and Brovo have been the ones doing that.

Bringing out Bible quotes of what God (if he exists) actually said.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Magic Magnum said
Except me and Brovo have been the ones doing that.Bringing out Bible quotes of what God (if he exists) actually said.

The Gospel is not everything that's included in the Bible.

[Gwazi Magnum]

The Nexerus said
Magnum, you clearly either didn't read or didn't comprehend the post you just replied to. The Jewish laws and customs outlined in the Old Testament have no baring on Christianity, and the story of the Israelites is not an example of how Christians are called to act.Jesus directly contradicts many Old Testament passages. Christianity is the religion of Christ, of Jesus of Nazareth, not Abraham and the Israelites. If a piece of legislation is revised, you cannot defend yourself in court by saying that your actions were in line with the older, now obsolete legislation. The story of the Israelites serves as context for the arrival of Jesus.

This one seemed to got lost when I was catching up on the pages of posts earlier, so I'll make sure to address this now.

The Old Testament does have baring on Christianity. It is from the Christian God, in the Christian Bible. It is Christian beliefs, laws and customs.

Jesus is what Christianity likes to say it's all about, probably because unlike most Christian characters Jesus was actually a pretty cool and chill guy. That way when Christianity tries to convert people they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of defending insane murderers and rapists, and simply be able to go "Look at Jesus! He was cool". May most of the original Christians been Jewish according to the Bible? Yes. But this is also because Christianity actually came from Jewish Religions which existed longer than Christianity did. :P

As for the whole "If law is revised you can't defend yourself in court with old laws". That isn't the case though, the Bible never actually says to ignore the OT. That's just a commonly believe/accepted claim among the Christian community cause it allows them to conveniently ignore many of Gods barbaric acts, making it easier to defend their god to people and convert people. As far as the Bible/God himself is concerned though, the OT still applies.

And regardless of that laws we have are made by humans. We revise them because humanity changes, culture changes, we learn from our mistakes. God is all powerful and all knowing. He should never have a need to change his laws or rules, he is completely capable of making a set of rules that can always be followed, or followers always capable of following those rules. If he his what the Bible claims he is, has no need to ever re-write laws, change things or learn from mistakes cause there is nothing to learn or adapt to. He already knows everything, and can do anything.

[Gwazi Magnum]

ActRaiserTheReturned said
The Gospel is not everything that's included in the Bible.

But the Bible is Christianity.

The Gospel is just the words of perhaps the only character in the entire Bible that people can actually read about, and then still probably like by the end of it.
It's basically going "No, ignore all these barbaric stuff God and his followers did. That's not what he like to focus on, look how good this one guy is!".

I can just imagine if we tried that anywhere else...

"You see that one Nazi? The one who worked his ass off to hide/refuge and free Jewish people? He's a good man. Let's now all praise him and Nazi's cause now Nazi's are good people... What? You want to look at the rest of the Nazi's? Oh no, no... That's not what being a Nazi is about, those are just men's words, and misinterpretations of what being a Nazi is".

[So Boerd]

First you need to prove there is a God that exists, which basically mean having more evidence than science has... and at the moment Religion has 0 so you really need to get working on that. :P
But even then all you have established is that a God exist, not which god. So once you did that, you also need to prove out of the countless religions that exist that yours in the right one.

You dodged the question. What is the minimum specific evidence I must produce?

Can you prove I have zero evidence? No, you can't and I will spare you the trouble of saying "I don't have to", which you DO if you are going to make a definitive statement rather than "I do not know if there is evidence". Strong show of faith on your part

@Bible citations. I have answered the John citation. Second, it is clear that all things does not mean all things. That John citation proves it by providing clarification. All things which were made were made by Him. Regarding the others, they in no way contradict my points.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So Boerd said
You dodged the question. What is the minimum specific evidence I must produce.@Bible citations. I have answered the John citation. Second, it is clear that all things does not mean all things. That John citation proves it by providing clarification. All things which were made were made by Him. Regarding the others, they in no way contradict my points.

I never dodged it, that is the minimum.

Beating Science, even if Religion is get's some kind of evidence I'm not suddenly going to convert when Science still has even more evidence.
Especially when said religious proof doesn't even point towards a specific god.

And the John citations are saying you need to forgiven, and that he made everything.
It's not proving your point at all, you argued things like our individuality wasn't made by him which Johns disagrees with.
You also argued that you don't need to be forgiven, which Johns also disagrees with.

And the rest of the quotes very clearly contradict your points.
They are saying the exact opposite of what you're saying.

-> You say we don't need forgiveness
-> Bible says you do

-> You say certain things of us weren't made by him
-> Bible says everything was made by him

-> You say he didn't make everything
-> Bible says God made everything

[Gwazi Magnum]

So Boerd said Can you prove I have zero evidence? No, you can't and I will spare you the trouble of saying "I don't have to", which you DO if you are going to make a definitive statement rather than "I do not know if there is evidence". Strong show of faith on your part

Has Religion ever shown or provided evidence? No.

Everything starts off having no evidence, you need to work from there to get evidence.
Religion has never gotten off that point, so from rather elementary observation and process of elimination, Religion has no evidence for it.
That is not the same as saying though there is 0% chance of it existing, that isn't true. There is always the chance Religion is correct no matter how remote it may be.

But that doesn't change the fact there is currently no evidence to support it.
That's not faith, that's basic reasoning.

[So Boerd]

This is becoming too much text for me to answer timely on my phone, but I will focus in on one aspect and return to your biblical citations later.

I never dodged it, that is the minimum.

Beating Science, even if Religion is get's some kind of evidence I'm not suddenly going to convert when Science still has even more evidence.
Especially when said religious proof doesn't even point towards a specific god.

.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I ever talk about the Holy Apostolic Ecumenical Church of Science, this is the example want you to think of. Belief in a God in no way contradicts science. There are plenty of Nobel Laureates who believe in a God. This God you believe in could be anything you want, as consistent with Science as you want. So I will ask the question more directly.

What PIECES of evidence do you require. List and describe them.

[So Boerd]

But that doesn't change the fact there is currently no evidence to support it.

Prove it.

[The Nexerus]

^ Burden of truth.

Magic Magnum said
This one seemed to got lost when I was catching up on the pages of posts earlier, so I'll make sure to address this now.The Old Testament does have baring on Christianity. It is from the Christian God, in the Christian Bible. It is Christian beliefs, laws and customs.Jesus is what Christianity likes to say it's all about, probably because unlike most Christian characters Jesus was actually a pretty cool and chill guy. That way when Christianity tries to convert people they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of defending insane murderers and rapists, and simply be able to go "Look at Jesus! He was cool". May most of the original Christians been Jewish according to the Bible? Yes. But this is also because Christianity actually came from Jewish Religions which existed longer than Christianity did. :PAs for the whole "If law is revised you can't defend yourself in court with old laws". That isn't the case though, the Bible never actually says to ignore the OT. That's just a commonly believe/accepted claim among the Christian community cause it allows them to conveniently ignore many of Gods barbaric acts, making it easier to defend their god to people and convert people. As far as the Bible/God himself is concerned though, the OT still applies. And regardless of that laws we have are made by humans. We revise them because humanity changes, culture changes, we learn from our mistakes. God is all powerful and all knowing. He should never have a need to change his laws or rules, he is completely capable of making a set of rules that can always be followed, or followers always capable of following those rules. If he his what the Bible claims he is, has no need to ever re-write laws, change things or learn from mistakes cause there is nothing to learn or adapt to. He already knows everything, and can do anything.

Christianity didn't exist before Christ did. You fancy yourself a logical person, so I would hope you can understand that easily.

The Old Testament is context. Jesus himself, and his disciples alongside him, did not follow Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses is the law of the old covenant, of the Israelites, not the new covenant, which extends to all people.

Jesus IS what Christianity is about. It's right there in the name, even. CHRISTianity is the religion of Christ, of Jesus of Nazareth. Moses, Abraham and the Old Covenant are as much a part of Christianity as they are a part of Islam. They're holy figures of the past, but their actions and the rules that they followed do not describe Christianity.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

[Gwazi Magnum]

So Boerd said
This is becoming too much text for me to answer timely on my phone, but I will focus in on one aspect and return to your biblical citations later..Ladies and gentlemen, if I ever talk about the Holy Apostolic Ecumenical Church of Science, this is the example want you to think of. Belief in a God in no way contradicts science. There are plenty of Nobel Laureates who believe in a God. This God you believe in could be anything you want, as consistent with Science as you want. So I will ask the question more directly.What PIECES of evidence do you require. List and describe them.

That's still not proof.
Just because a god existing doesn't conflicting with a proven theory doesn't automatically give it evidence.

I mean I could say a Unicorn exists, that technically doesn't conflict Evolution. A species could of always evolved into one.
But there is no evidence to support it, so if I were to make such a claim it would have no evidence. Regardless of who else also believed it.
And if we're talking strictly the Christian God, it does actually conflict. The Bible claims the earth is 6,000 years old. Science has proven the earth is several billion years old

So the Bible is off by such a margin a calculator had to switch to letters and other signs to shorten the number it's off by it's so big. :P

As for specific pieces?

You need to disprove evolution, cause the Bible is against that.
You need to disprove the age of the Universe, the earth, etc.
You need to disprove there are any other planets capable of supporting life, cause we are also meant to be the only planet there is with life.
You need to disprove every other religion out there.

You need to prove the existence of a god.
You need to prove that said God is the Christian God.
You need to prove the earth is 6000 years old.
You need to prove there was a great flood that killed almost all of human life.
You need to prove that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

And this is just off the top of the head, I guarantee if I bothered to sit down and think of this for a few hours I could add even more to both of these lists.

So Boerd said Prove it.

You have nothing, not being able to provide said evidence is proof of that.
God had 6000 years and infinite power to use to prove himself, yet he never does.

You are honestly getting to the point where you're not even listening to the point's your debating against, making me think it was a mistake to start responding to you again. Even if you basically planted yourself right in the middle of Brovo's and Act's debate.

The Nexerus said Christianity didn't exist before Christ did. You fancy yourself a logical person, so I would hope you can understand that easily.The Old Testament is context. Jesus himself, and his disciples alongside him, did not follow Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses is the law of the old covenant, of the Israelites, not the new covenant, which extends to all people.

The Bible talks about 4,000 or so years before Christ.
And that was rules, times etc lead by the Christian God, Jesus's dad.
Laws which were established as Christianity before Jesus came down, and according to the Bible (Which is also where Jesus's words come from), the OT was never ruled out/ignored.

Unless if you mean to imply you worship Jesus, but not God.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Magic Magnum said
That's still not proof.Just because a god existing doesn't conflicting with a proven theory doesn't automatically give it evidence.I mean I could say a Unicorn exists, that technically doesn't conflict Evolution. A species could of always evolved into one.But there is no evidence to support it, so if I were to make such a claim it would have no evidence. Regardless of who else also believed it.And if we're talking strictly the Christian God, it does actually conflict. The Bible claims the earth is 6,000 years old. Science has proven the earth is several billion years oldSo the Bible is off by such a margin a calculator had to switch to letters and other signs to shorten the number it's off by it's so big. :PAs for specific pieces?You need to disprove evolution, cause the Bible is against that.You need to disprove the age of the Universe, the earth, etc.You need to disprove there are any other planets capable of supporting life, cause we are also meant to be the only planet there is with life.You need to disprove every other religion out there.You need to prove the existence of a god.You need to prove that said God is the Christian God.You need to prove the earth is 6000 years old.You need to prove there was a great flood that killed almost all of human life.You need to prove that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.And this is just off the top of the head, I guarantee if I bothered to sit down and think of this for a few hours I could add even more to both of these lists.You have nothing, not being able to provide said evidence is proof of that.God had 6000 years and infinite power to use to prove himself, yet he never does.You are honestly getting to the point where you're not even listening to the point's your debating against, making me think it was a mistake to start responding to you again. Even if you basically planted yourself right in the middle of Brovo's and Act's debate.The Bible talks about 4,000 or so years before Christ.And that was rules, times etc lead by the Christian God, Jesus's dad.Laws which were established as Christianity before Jesus came down, and according to the Bible (Which is also where Jesus's words come from), the OT was never ruled out/ignored.Unless if you mean to imply you worship Jesus, but not God.

What is your opinion on Hitler's explanation?

[So Boerd]

I did not say prove the Christian God, I said ANY God, even a non-descript one.

You have nothing, not being able to provide said evidence is proof of that.

Um, no it isn't. That's just flat wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science 101.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

So Boerd said
I did not say prove the Christian God, I said ANY God, even a non-descript one.Um, no it isn't. That's just flat wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science 101.

Kay then. Since Magnum is not paying attention. . .what is YOUR opinion on Hitler's explanation. Poor Hitler. No one listens to him anymore.