Holocaustolatry within the Church

[Armor105]

Is this the correct thread to discuss the issue in mod?

This topic is about the holocaust and the Chrsitian Church.

Friedrich Paul Berg made the comment:

If anyone continues to believe in any religion, they might just as well believe in the holocaust hoax. There is far more evidence for gassings than there is that Jesus rose from dead or performed any miracles at all, ever.. It is all bunk! Get used to it.

This is an interesting statement and I think it deserves a response. I'm not offended by it, I expect it and understand why this sort of statement comes from those who profess atheism.

The first thing that comes to mind as a response from me, a Christian, is....that the quality of the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead is clearly different for a Christian or a non-Christian.

As a Christian, I believe the bible is the Word of God and is absolute truth.
As a non-Christian, you believe the bible is a collection of bronze age myths.

I don't know you very well, but I would probably be right in saying that both of us would state that eyewitness testimonies by the enemies of the Germans and dubious nazi confessions (best evidence for gassings) are NOT absolute truth.

So, in my case I have Jesus rising from the grave as absolute truth and nazi gassing evidence as very flimsy indeed. So why on Earth would I "might just as well believe in the holocaust hoax"?

[Kingfisher]

Moderator:

This thread is going OT with regard to the H. The fault lies more with Mr Berg -- who has a long and distinguished record on the site -- for trolling the religion issue in the first place than with Armor105, a newcomer, for rising to the bait.

[Hektor]

Religion and science including historical science do have different epistemologies. And yes, I find the New testament far more credible then the Holocaust narrative also by the standards of historical science.

That said it is the atheists that run into serious problems, when it comes to philosophical proof. But I think this is a completely different matter then this forum deals with.

[Cloud]

A cake cannot be made if either the materials (e.g., flour, butter, oven) or the baker do not exist. If in the beginning there was nothing, what did He use to create the universe with?

[Armor105]

A cake cannot be made if either the materials (e.g., flour, butter, oven) or the baker do not exist. If in the beginning there was nothing, what did He use to create the universe with?

I don't think I'm allowed to answer that here but you are welcome to ask the same question over on my forum and I would gladly discuss it with you my friend.

Link in my sig.

[Moderator]

A cake cannot be made if either the materials (e.g., flour, butter, oven) or the baker do not exist. If in the beginning there was nothing, what did He use to create the universe with?

I don't think I'm allowed to answer that here but you are welcome to ask the same question over on my forum and I would gladly discuss it with you my friend.

Link in my sig.

This thread has taken so many turns already, so go ahead and answer, Armor105. At a certain point however, this thread must return to a 'holocaust' orientation.
M1

[Armor105]

A cake cannot be made if either the materials (e.g., flour, butter, oven) or the baker do not exist. If in the beginning there was nothing, what did He use to create the universe with?

God used His own power to create the universe and indeed upholds it by the power of His Word.

Psa 33:6-9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (7) He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. (8) Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. (9) For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.


God does not need to pop down the local shop to grab some trees, water and stardust.

If you then say, 'this is not scientific, therefore I'm not obliged to believe it'...I agree!

Everyone's cosmological argument involves some kind of metaphysics whether you are a believer in the bible or a believer in theoretical science books.

Personally I find the Genesis creation account more credible and likely than the ramblings of men like Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein.

But each to his own.

Did you know that the evolutionary model of the universe is brought to us by the same folks who originated the 6 million holocaust hoax?

Quote:

Kabbalistic Cosmology and its parallels in the ‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics

Adam McLean ©

In earlier articles I have tried to point out the links between hermetic and alchemical ideas and the developing current of thought in modern physics and cosmology. In this present piece I would like to pursue the strange parallels between the late 16th century reformation of kabbalistic cosmology that arose through the insights of Isaac Luria, and the recent reformulation of the ‘big-bang' into the so-called ‘inflationary model' of cosmic creation. Although the formulation of these two cosmologies was separated by some 400 years, we can recognise that they addressed the same problem, that of the emanation of the cosmos out of nothing.

LINK: Levity.com

Thanks mod for letting me answer.

[Hektor]

....
Personally I find the Genesis creation account more credible and likely than the ramblings of men like Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein.
....

Actually Copernicus believed in the Genesis creation account. Just as most other founders of modern science.
http://www.wfu.edu/~kuz/Stamps/Copernic ... rnicus.htm