Grinch tries to steal Christmas, stands in front of elementary school with 'Santa Is Fake' sign (1 Viewer)

[fooferdoggie]

Another butt crevasse Christian forcing his faith on others. Like Christians don't lie.
"I understand why they’re upset," Grisham said. "They’re upset because they’re prideful and don’t want to admit that lying to their child is wrong in spite of what God’s word says. They’re more concerned with the traditions of men rather than the truth. And they double down on the lie because of pride and they are angry because they want to blame the person telling the truth than the one who told the lie that prompted the truth to expose the lie."

"They don’t want to be seen as a liar in the eyes of their child. But the facts say they are."

ABC 7 News also asked Grisham why he would choose to ruin the "magic" of Christmas for kids.

"I’m not concerned about the “magic” of Christmas but the MIRACLE of Christmas in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ," said Grisham.

Sleepy Hollow Principal Kelsey Williams said Grisham was "unwanted and uninvited."

Grinch tries to steal Christmas, stands in front of elementary school with 'Santa Is Fake' sign

The Grinch tried to steal Christmas. Dressed as The Grinch, David Grisham carried a sign during the morning drop-off at Sleepy Hollow Elementary.

abc7amarillo.com

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

A ben vedere, è la vita, e tutto il resto dell'Universo, che è, di per se stesso, un miracolo. Ma non ve ne siete mai accorti.
------ translated -----------------
Upon closer inspection, it is life, and everything else in the Universe, that is, in itself, a miracle. But you never noticed.

.....................................................

This is about young children not being discouraged from believing in Santa Claus by an adult who uses his own beliefs to accomplish that.

As for your post? No, I don't believe we sit at a prearranged table setting or are flying in a premeditated 747.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A ben vedere, è la vita, e tutto il resto dell'Universo, che è, di per se stesso, un miracolo. Ma non ve ne siete mai accorti.
------ translated -----------------
Upon closer inspection, it is life, and everything else in the Universe, that is, in itself, a miracle. But you never noticed.

---

I know it's not very nice to say, from inside a discussion forum, to go and read the pages of another forum, but please, make an exception, and read again about the famous Boeing 747, which was assembled on its own (in this link)

In essence, a scientist named Hoyle claims that the mechanisms underlying life are so complicated, even if taken individually, and there are so many, that he considers it more probable that a hurricane hits a pile of scrap, and that this hurricane, once finished, will build the Boeing 747 airplane, with all the wires, all the seats, and all the bolts in place. And all by chance. It is impossible that something like this could have happened on its own, and spontaneously. The mechanisms that are necessary to reach the five or six of us who are writing on these keyboards are too many, and too perfect. This is what I have already said to you: if you enter a room of a large restaurant, and find a very long table, set for 250 people, with all the plates perfectly aligned, one in front of the other, with all the forks, knives, and spoons, arranged perfectly on the right, and on the left, and also symmetrical with the other places, all the candlesticks placed in the right places, well, who would be so stupid as to say that everything he sees is arranged in that way , simply shaking the building where the restaurant is located, and in a spontaneous and fortuitous way?

The thesis, formulated by non-believers, essentially hypothesizes that a hydrogen atom and a helium atom, colliding with each other over the course of 13.5 billion years, arrived, on their own, and by fortuitous chance , to the table above, and to all the wonders that exist in our Creation. All this is impossible, not even in 13.5 billion, multiplied by another 13.5 billion, and on to the second. You can wait as long as you want, but if something is impossible, it is impossible. Not even waiting all eternity. The table below describes the chances of winning a lottery where 6 numbers are drawn.

From it we understand that the probability of an extra number being rolled causes the chances of winning to collapse. And to get that Boeing 747, or to life on this Earth, the numbers that would have had to come out are not just 6, but thousands and thousands. And if even one of all these thousands of numbers had not been drawn, life would not have appeared. Even Albert Einstein mused about it, in a letter to a friend of his. He observed, and highlighted, the perfection of the physical forces in elementary particles, or, for example, the speed with which an electron revolves around its nucleus, and the force of attraction between them. If those values had been, even slightly, different from what they are now, there would have been no physics as we know it. And, least of all, life.

And these things, said the good Albert, a priori, we were not justified in expecting. But let's hear directly from the interested party.

See more

«Dear Solovine […]. You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of nature (as far as we are allowed to speak of comprehensibility), as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, what we should expect, a priori, is precisely a chaotic world completely inaccessible to thought. We could (moreover, we should) expect the world to be governed by laws only to the extent that we intervene with our ordering intelligence: it would be an order similar to the alphabetical one, of the dictionary, whereas the type of order created by example from Newton's theory of gravitation has a completely different character. Even if the axioms of the theory are imposed by man, the success of such a construction presupposes a high degree of order in the objective world, that is, something that, a priori, one is not at all authorized to expect . This is the "miracle" that is increasingly strengthened with the development of our knowledge. This is where the weakness of the positivists and professional atheists lies, happy only because they are aware of having, with complete success, stripped the world not only of God, but also of miracles. The curious fact is that we must be content to recognize "the miracle" without there being a legitimate way to go further. I say this so that you don't think that I - weakened by age - am now easy prey for priests"

---

«I am not an atheist and I don't think I can define myself as a pantheist. We are in the situation of a small child entering a vast library filled with books written in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. He doesn't know how. The child suspects that there must be a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books, but he doesn't know what it is. This seems to me to be the behavior of the most intelligent human being towards God. We see a wonderfully ordered universe that respects precise laws, which we can however understand only in an obscure way. Our limited thoughts cannot fully grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations"

In short, we clearly see everywhere, the footsteps and footprints of the one who made everything around us. We have no excuses. And, if we make excuses, and if we cling to bizarre theories, it is only because our bad conscience is trying in every way to free itself from a camera that, since our first cry, has taken note, and recorded, everything that we combined. Misdeeds included. No, we will have no excuses (1),

1) From my Sacred Reference Text:

See more

In reality the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and all injustice of men who suffocate the truth in injustice, [19] since what can be known about God is manifest to them ; God himself showed it to them. [20] Indeed, from the creation of the world onwards, the invisible perfections of him can be contemplated with the intellect in the works he has accomplished , such as the eternal power and divinity of him; [21] They are therefore inexcusable, because, although they knew God, they did not give him glory or give thanks to him as to God, but they became delusional in their reasoning and their dull minds were darkened. [22] While they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the image and image of corruptible man, of birds, of quadrupeds and of reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up to impurity according to the desires of their hearts, so that they would dishonor their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and venerated and worshiped the creature place of the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The original post was here:

---

@SystemShock will be here soon to address this

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

"A little science can take you away from God. A lot of science can bring you closer to God."
(Pascal)

---

I'm a Buddhist.

 

[SystemShock]

A ben vedere, è la vita, e tutto il resto dell'Universo, che è, di per se stesso, un miracolo. Ma non ve ne siete mai accorti.
------ translated -----------------
Upon closer inspection, it is life, and everything else in the Universe, that is, in itself, a miracle. But you never noticed.

---

I know it's not very nice to say, from inside a discussion forum, to go and read the pages of another forum, but please, make an exception, and read again about the famous Boeing 747, which was assembled on its own (in this link)

In essence, a scientist named Hoyle claims that the mechanisms underlying life are so complicated, even if taken individually, and there are so many, that he considers it more probable that a hurricane hits a pile of scrap, and that this hurricane, once finished, will build the Boeing 747 airplane, with all the wires, all the seats, and all the bolts in place. And all by chance. It is impossible that something like this could have happened on its own, and spontaneously. The mechanisms that are necessary to reach the five or six of us who are writing on these keyboards are too many, and too perfect. This is what I have already said to you: if you enter a room of a large restaurant, and find a very long table, set for 250 people, with all the plates perfectly aligned, one in front of the other, with all the forks, knives, and spoons, arranged perfectly on the right, and on the left, and also symmetrical with the other places, all the candlesticks placed in the right places, well, who would be so stupid as to say that everything he sees is arranged in that way , simply shaking the building where the restaurant is located, and in a spontaneous and fortuitous way?

The thesis, formulated by non-believers, essentially hypothesizes that a hydrogen atom and a helium atom, colliding with each other over the course of 13.5 billion years, arrived, on their own, and by fortuitous chance , to the table above, and to all the wonders that exist in our Creation. All this is impossible, not even in 13.5 billion, multiplied by another 13.5 billion, and on to the second. You can wait as long as you want, but if something is impossible, it is impossible. Not even waiting all eternity. The table below describes the chances of winning a lottery where 6 numbers are drawn.

From it we understand that the probability of an extra number being rolled causes the chances of winning to collapse. And to get that Boeing 747, or to life on this Earth, the numbers that would have had to come out are not just 6, but thousands and thousands. And if even one of all these thousands of numbers had not been drawn, life would not have appeared. Even Albert Einstein mused about it, in a letter to a friend of his. He observed, and highlighted, the perfection of the physical forces in elementary particles, or, for example, the speed with which an electron revolves around its nucleus, and the force of attraction between them. If those values had been, even slightly, different from what they are now, there would have been no physics as we know it. And, least of all, life.

And these things, said the good Albert, a priori, we were not justified in expecting. But let's hear directly from the interested party.

See more

«Dear Solovine […]. You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of nature (as far as we are allowed to speak of comprehensibility), as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, what we should expect, a priori, is precisely a chaotic world completely inaccessible to thought. We could (moreover, we should) expect the world to be governed by laws only to the extent that we intervene with our ordering intelligence: it would be an order similar to the alphabetical one, of the dictionary, whereas the type of order created by example from Newton's theory of gravitation has a completely different character. Even if the axioms of the theory are imposed by man, the success of such a construction presupposes a high degree of order in the objective world, that is, something that, a priori, one is not at all authorized to expect . This is the "miracle" that is increasingly strengthened with the development of our knowledge. This is where the weakness of the positivists and professional atheists lies, happy only because they are aware of having, with complete success, stripped the world not only of God, but also of miracles. The curious fact is that we must be content to recognize "the miracle" without there being a legitimate way to go further. I say this so that you don't think that I - weakened by age - am now easy prey for priests"

---

«I am not an atheist and I don't think I can define myself as a pantheist. We are in the situation of a small child entering a vast library filled with books written in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. He doesn't know how. The child suspects that there must be a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books, but he doesn't know what it is. This seems to me to be the behavior of the most intelligent human being towards God. We see a wonderfully ordered universe that respects precise laws, which we can however understand only in an obscure way. Our limited thoughts cannot fully grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations"

In short, we clearly see everywhere, the footsteps and footprints of the one who made everything around us. We have no excuses. And, if we make excuses, and if we cling to bizarre theories, it is only because our bad conscience is trying in every way to free itself from a camera that, since our first cry, has taken note, and recorded, everything that we combined. Misdeeds included. No, we will have no excuses (1),

1) From my Sacred Reference Text:

See more

In reality the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and all injustice of men who suffocate the truth in injustice, [19] since what can be known about God is manifest to them ; God himself showed it to them. [20] Indeed, from the creation of the world onwards, the invisible perfections of him can be contemplated with the intellect in the works he has accomplished , such as the eternal power and divinity of him; [21] They are therefore inexcusable, because, although they knew God, they did not give him glory or give thanks to him as to God, but they became delusional in their reasoning and their dull minds were darkened. [22] While they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the image and image of corruptible man, of birds, of quadrupeds and of reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up to impurity according to the desires of their hearts, so that they would dishonor their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and venerated and worshiped the creature place of the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The original post was here:

---

You could've saved a lot of time and effort by just typing "William Paley's watchmaker", which has been retold in many different examples of man-made objects or structures. This argument has been refuted/debunked plenty. I'll leave a link below to my favorite debunking of it, from Stephen Woolford; it's my favorite because it also details every logical fallacy in the argument, especially towards the end, when you find a watch on the beach, then you find a shoe: if you walk on the beach and find a watch, you can safely assume a watchmaker made the watch; if you walk some more and you find a shoe, do you assume the watchmaker made the shoe?

As for Albert Einstein, you probably need to read Einstein's famous 1954 God Letter, in which he states: "The word 'God' is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,". It then says: "For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition."
And that's all you need to know about Einstein regarding religion.

As for the odds of life occurring at random, yet again, another retelling of the same argument, this time with atoms and lottery numbers; usually it's dice, but anyway, first, you misrepresent the abiogenesis argument, but still, the argument is flawed in comparing winning the lottery with the creation of life. Let me explain:

So the probability of winning a 6-number lottery is 1:622,614,630. Ok. What's the probability of winning if you buy 2 tickets? 3 tickets? 100 tickets? A thousand tickets? A billion tickets? A trillion tickets? What if the lottery never resets, and you just keep on buying trillions upon trillions of tickets? See? This collision of atoms didn't just happen once, it happened trillions of times in trillions of places across the universe for billions of years. Knowing that, what are the odds then?

And last, the written pages you posted, other religions have ancient written pages as well. Hindus have the books of the Vedas. In them, they describe Brahma as the creator of life, centuries before even Judaism took form. If I showed you written text from one of the books of the Vedas, would you believe in Brahma, and the thousands of other Hindu gods?

 

[SystemShock]

"A little science can take you away from God. A lot of science can bring you closer to God."
(Pascal)

Which god?

 

[SystemShock]

That would be far more believable, right?

And there was actually a second century Jewish polemic against Christianity that declared Jesus the bastage son of a Roman soldier. This is reflected in the medievel Bablyonian Talmud, where Jesus is referred to as both Jesus Ben Stada ('son of the unfaithful') and Jesus Ben Pandera ('son of Pandera,' probably meaning Panthera, i.e, 'Panther,' which was a nickname for Roman soldiers).

As System and BSB note, there were other religions at the time who told myths of virgin births, but in this case, when Matthew re-wrote Mark's Gospel and added the nativity story, he was drawing from Isaiah 7:14, where it originally read "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The young woman ('almah') will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Immanuel means "God is with us," and then Matthew later concludes his Gospel with Jesus saying "I am with you" -- clever!)

Anyway, 'almah' means "young woman of childbearing age," but when this passage was translated to Greek for the Septuagint (which was the text preferred by early Christian writers) it was translated as "virgin." That probably actually helped it fit better with the mythology of the day, and Matthew ran with it.

In the material written prior to Matthew, though, there's no record or mention of a virgin birth, and Paul even specifically says there are no signs.

[It just so happens, I just dropped few posts the other day in this thread discussing the literary inspirations in the Gospels and prior to that in Paul's beliefs -- https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/if-you-dont-believe-there-was-a-jesus-you-are-stupid.272408/ -- if you can make it through, there's a pretty good plot twist in part 3.]

I am always amazed at the level of research you do. I really am.