[Didymus Much]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

when there is no evidence something exists, it is logical to believe it isn't

So you're free to state your unsubstantiated beliefs as FACT, yet when others do the same, your get your knickers in a twist, and feel justified invading someone else's forum to tell them they're wrong (based on your complete lack of evidence).

As the kids say, stay classy.

[GoldenShower]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

I know what I believe is true as it has been backed up by EVIDNECE. Your beliefs have no such evidence

[Didymus Much]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

I know what I believe is true as it has been backed up by EVIDNECE...

If what you believe is true and backed up by facts, it's not belief. It's knowledge.

...Your beliefs have no such evidence

Same as your disbelief in God, or why do continually refuse to supply your proof?

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

I know what I believe is true as it has been backed up by EVIDNECE. Your beliefs have no such evidence

I find it hard to believe that you can be so confident when you know for a fact that Jesus is real.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

That makes you a liar, madam.

Lol. Jesus wins again.

YIC

[GoldenShower]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

It depends in which context you are reffering to Jesus. About 2000 years ago, Jesus was a very popular man's name, almost like the name John today, It would have been hard to find a street that did not have somebody named Jesus living on it. However, the Jesus which you are reffering to, a supernatural entity, did not exist as the things which he is credited with are impossible by the laws of Physics.

That makes me believe that Jesus in this context did not exist, and you can't use a fictitious story as evidence fir anything

[Didymus Much]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

...About 2000 years ago, Jesus was a very popular man's name, almost like the name John today...

Ok , then post your source for that.

[Alphonse Alban]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

not exist as the things which he is credited with are impossible by the laws of Physics

Physical laws are theoretical statements by default. They change all the time, as they are only theories. As it is with any secular laws. ON the other hand, Laws of God stay true. Glory, Jesus wins again!
About 6000 years ago, God created everything. Things that might seem impossible for a heathen, who does not understand how the universe works, are possible for a Christian. Everything is possible for the LORD!

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

[Roland]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

About 2000 years ago, Jesus was a very popular man's name, almost like the name John today, It would have been hard to find a street that did not have somebody named Jesus living on it

Very interesting mr. Shower, please elaborate, it might prove to be quite amusing

[Alvin Moss]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

About 2000 years ago, Jesus was a very popular man's name, almost like the name John today

There are neighborhoods in the city I live in where ten percent of the male population is named Jesus. They are God defying Roman Catholic Mexicans and they will have some splaining to do when they pass.

[Bjorn Jensen]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

A script has been written for the movie, Kevin Sorbo has been confirmed to take part in it and play the atheist as he was interested ever since day 1. Producton is expected to start this summer in the outskirts of Des Moines.

My 2 pet monkeys, Trayvon and Martin, will also play a minor role.

[Comatoserocker]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

Good point. I mean, I'm not saying you all are liars, but I find it hard to believe as well. I mean, if they had visual proof, then they would convert for sure, but I've never heard this story anywhere else (or in the bible)

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

Good point. I mean, I'm not saying you all are liars, but I find it hard to believe as well. I mean, if they had visual proof, then they would convert for sure, but I've never heard this story anywhere else (or in the bible)

Atheists are confronted with visual proof all the time and they still don't convert. This shows how mentally and spiritually retarded they all are.

[Comatoserocker]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

Are you serious? So you're telling me that some guy saw a talking octopus reading the bible and STILL didn't convert? I think he's missing a few brain cells if THATS not enough proof that God exists. And even if the Big Bang really happened, who would've caused it? Some people just aren't smart

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

I doubt there are many true atheists in reality, just a lot of loud mouths who hate God. Making atheists cry is possibly a soft variant of the more time-tested methods for establishing Godliness in a person, such as submerging in water. If the supposed atheist cries, that is proof of repentance in the face of the Lord's grace.

Hot water

First mentioned in the 6th century Lex Salica, the ordeal of hot water required the accused to dip his hand in a kettle of boiling water and retrieve a stone.

King Athelstan made a law concerning the ordeal. The water had to be close to boiling temperature, and the depth from which the stone had to be retrieved was up to the wrist for one accusation and up to the elbow for three. The ordeal would take place in the church, with several in attendance, purified and praying God to reveal the truth. Afterwards, the hand was bound and examined after three days to see whether it was healing or festering.[7]

This was still a practice of 12th-century Catholic churches. A suspect would place his hand in the boiling water. If after three days God had not healed his wounds, the suspect was guilty of the crime.[8]

Cold water

The ordeal of cold water has a precedent in the Code of Ur-Nammu and the Code of Hammurabi, under which a man accused of sorcery was to be submerged in a stream and acquitted if he survived. The practice was also set out in Frankish law but was abolished by Louis the Pious in 829. The practice reappeared in the Late Middle Ages: in the Dreieicher Wildbann of 1338, a man accused of poaching was to be submerged in a barrel three times and to be considered innocent if he floated, and guilty if he sank.

Witch-hunts

Ordeal by water was later associated with the witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries, although in this scenario the outcome was reversed from the examples above: an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. Demonologists developed inventive new theories about how it worked. The ordeal would normally be conducted with a rope holding the subject connected to assistants sitting in a boat or the like, so that the person being tested could be pulled in if he/she did not float; the notion that the ordeal was flatly devised as a situation without any possibility of live acquittal, even if the outcome was 'innocent', is a modern exaggeration. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced baptism when entering the Devil's service. Jacob Rickius claimed that they were supernaturally light and recommended weighing them as an alternative to dunking them.[9] King James VI of Scotland (later also James I of England) claimed in his Daemonologie that water was so pure an element that it repelled the guilty. A witch trial including this ordeal took place in Szeged, Hungary as late as 1728.[10] The ordeal of water is also contemplated by the Vishnu Smrti,[11] which is one of the texts of the Dharmaśāstra.[11]

By cross

The ordeal of the cross was apparently introduced in the Early Middle Ages in an attempt to discourage judicial duels among the Germanic peoples. As with judicial duels, and unlike most other ordeals, the accuser had to undergo the ordeal together with the accused. They stood on either side of a cross and stretched out their hands horizontally. The one to first lower his arms lost. This ordeal was prescribed by Charlemagne in 779 and again in 806. A capitulary of Louis the Pious in 819[12] and a decree of Lothar I, recorded in 876, abolished the ordeal so as to avoid the mockery of Christ.

By ingestion

Franconian law prescribed that an accused was to be given dry bread and cheese blessed by a priest. If he choked on the food, he was considered guilty. This was transformed into the ordeal of the Eucharist (trial by sacrament) mentioned by Regino of Prüm ca. 900:AD; the accused was to take the Eucharist after a solemn oath professing his innocence. It was believed that if the oath had been false, the person would die within the same year.

Both versions are essentially the opposite of ordeals, as they rely on the guilty parties' self-incrimination, while providing what amounts to a presumption of innocence. They are designed to be harmless and merciful. For how it was used in Anglo-Saxon England, see Corsned.

Numbers 5:12–27 prescribes that a woman suspected of adultery should be made to swallow "the bitter water that causeth the curse" by the priest in order to determine her guilt. The accused would be condemned only if 'her belly shall swell and her thigh shall rot'. It is known as the Sotah. One writer has recently argued that the procedure has a rational basis, envisioning punishment only upon clear proof of pregnancy (a swelling belly) or venereal disease (a rotting thigh).[13]

By poison

in an ominous and dark tropical forest, a person lays on the ground, surrounded by men with spears, as a crowd looks on
A 19th-century artist's depiction of the tangena ordeal in Madagascar

Some cultures, such as the Efik Uburutu people of present-day Nigeria, would administer the poisonous Calabar bean (Physostigma venenosum; known as esere in Efik) in an attempt to detect guilt. A defendant who vomited up the bean was innocent. A defendant who became ill or died was considered guilty.[14]

Residents of Madagascar could accuse one another of various crimes, including theft, Christianity, and especially witchcraft, for which the ordeal of tangena was routinely obligatory. In the 1820s, ingestion of the poisonous nut caused about 1,000 deaths annually. This average rose to around 3,000 annual deaths between 1828 and 1861.[15]

Indeed, in early modern Europe, the Mass was unofficially used as a form of poison ordeal: a suspected party was forced to take the Eucharist on the grounds that, if he was guilty, he would be eternally damned, and hence his willingness to take the test would give an indication of his guilt.[16]

By boiling oil

Trial by boiling oil has been practiced in villages in India[17] and in certain parts of West Africa, such as Togo.[18] There are two main alternatives of this trial. In one version, the accused parties are ordered to retrieve an item from a container of boiling oil, with those who refuse the task being found guilty.[17] In the other version of the trial, both the accused and the accuser have to retrieve an item from boiling oil, with the person or persons whose hand remains unscathed being declared innocent.[18]

By turf

An Icelandic ordeal tradition involves the accused walking under a piece of turf. If the turf falls on the accused's head, the accused person is pronounced guilty.[19]

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: How to make an atheist cry

The following story has been known to make atheists cry! . . .

Ha. It's funny because you know it's true.