Yassine

All at the same time?. Do you not have a job or something? Who can do that? 

1. Jesus is God

2. Jesus died and then rose from the dead

3. Muhammed was not real

4. Having sex with children is unethical

5. The Quran is corrupted

6. Islam is not a religion of peace

WWere going to try and convert each other in order to do that I need to use the Quran against the Quran and you i would leave the option to lean on the Quran or bible but you should probably be quoting the bible a lot. This can't happen for a few weeks anyway Yassine but I am open to a lot of different things and willing to argue devils advocate to make something work for both of ua

The intention Yassine is to the best of our ability to respect both the Quran and the bible as true for most of these debates or as much as we can. I was hoping mostly for debates that centered around exploring both books. Some of those debates do not fall into those categories but for the most part thinking of the challenges across those lines would help understand what I am after. I have seen some debates recently between Muslims and Christians where they are both quoting each othersbooks a lot and they seemed like they would be fun

I can't think of any examples but I am sure some exist the bible has a lot of people in it that range from good to evil only a few moral exemplars such as your prophet exist in the bible.

1. Jesus is God

2. Jesus died and then rose from the dead

5. The Quran is corrupted

6. Islam is not a religion of peace

As far as reeducation of the population is concerned, just intense philosophy classes beginning in elementary and going until they get out of highschool. 

Transhumanism is at the end of the day about radical life extension. Liberalism kills babies before they are born, attempts to kill the elderly through euthenasia and is generally anti-life.

Assuming that humans act in accordance with a predetermined nature has nothing to do with viewing reality as objective or subjective. It probably falls more along the lines of whether I believe in predeterminism or not and predeterminism is a philosophical belief probably more in line with what an objectionist would think.

You can say my nature is predetermined or not, it is irrelevant as to whether truth is subjective or not. Either genetic predeterminism is true or it isn't. If it is true, it doesn't mean subjectivism is true. In fact I think it makes subjectivism less true.

You are saying things can't be reconciled which can be. It is logical to both believe in a higher power and to believe in that God wrote himself onto our heart. The reason all of humanity share moral values is because God gave us those moral instincts. God did not give everyone throughout history a Bible or a Koran.

He did give everyone an instinct for what is moral. We know murder is wrong. We knew that before you ever read the Koran. You knew that because God gave you instincts for right and wrong. Every society on the planet even ones unexposed to an abrahamic religion knows that killing for fun is wrong, every single society knows that raping baby's is wrong.

Having this internal moral instincts does not mean you get to determine what is right and wrong. It means God has already determined right and wrong and wrote it on your heart. There is a reason that Cain tried to cover up his crime before a single commandment was written. God has wrote the laws on his heart and he knew murdering his brother was wrong according to his own internal morality set by God. He chose to ignore the laws God wrote on his heart. 

Humans don't get to determine right and wrong. Allah already did it, and nobody gets a free pass even if they have no access to holy books, because like Cain who knew what was wrong prior to the 10 commandments, we also have the law written on our hearts. 

Pure mentally ill truth-hating bullshit. 9 out of 10 pedophiles are fellow family members or fellow church members.  Children are far, far safer in the company of Liberal adults than Conservative adults.  Statistically speaking, a young girl is much safer from attack with a gay stranger than with father, brother, uncle, or minister.   The overwhelming amount of child sex assault comes from the big strength differences between adult males and young teenaged or preteen girls.  

All of the major anti-pedophilia legislation of the 20th and 21st century comes from the Left-wing, mostly from Feminists.  Walter Mondale is credited with most of the laws cracking down on child sex assault in the late 20th century, overcoming fierce Conservative resistance to legislation.  Throughout Europe, Liberals outlawed child sex over Conservative's strong objections.

Modern MAGA is far more tolerant of child sex assault than any other political party in American History- Donald Trump's 20 year close friendship with Jeff Epstein and Alex Acosta's Republican cover-up, Matt Gaetz's relationship with 17 year old girls and 12 year old boys.  Jim Jordan's cover-up of hundreds of sex assaults by Richard Strauss while Jordan was wrestling coach.  Lauren Boebert's husband's conviction for exposing his genitals to underage girls while Boebert watched, the whole Republican Party knew about Mark Foley and covered it up, the same with Denny Hastert,  

Just look at how many Klan leaders and Neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists go down for child rape and child pornography.  The numbers are not a coincidence.  Nor is it a coincidence that Jim Watkins, the most probable long-term personality behind QAnon and the QAnon servers' administrator also ran stormfront.com from the same server rack and also made his millions sneaking child porn into Asian markets.  There is a strong relationship between right-wing extremism and child sex abuse.

For every liberal you can find guilty of child sex assault I can hand you twenty conservatives so your delusional psychic predictions about Liberals and pedophilia can get fucked.  If you want to stop pedophilia, put women into power.

Your doubt is not evidence-based.

an existent moral order that precedes political exigency

family values

free trade

strong national defense, strong support for military alliances, particularly against European dictators and Russian autocrats.

strong support for democracy and capitalism internationally

Conservatives preserve custom, convention, continuity.

strong defense of Western cultural tradition

prudence is a virtue

restraints on political power by loyal opposition

change must be reconciled with tradition

etc.

but just look at the increases in percentage of citizens, stakeholders in the economy, individual and property rights, power sharing.

Yet, the liberal secular modern West is vastly more authoritarian than virtually any government system in History.

ridiculous and ignorant

Improve your reading comprehension:  I said "continuous government in the world today"  Abbasids and Ottomans are no longer in the world today but I don't expect that you have noticed.

I pointed out that Capitalism is human character so always present in every human society. 

Don't know how you failed to comprehend.

I pointed out your historical  illiteracy.

We’ve talked about this before but the idea that there’s going to be a civil war in the United States any time soon is absurd, and no amount of mean words is going to change that. Democrats and Republicans don’t even have street fights at a large scale in the United States, now they’re going to go to war? 

Look at the 1860 election which led to the first attempt at secession. Of the 11 confederate states in ten of them Lincoln, the winner, was not even allowed on the ballot and got ZERO votes. In the one state he was on the ballot, Virginia, he got 1% of the vote. And he WON the election. The reason the split happened was because opposition to Lincoln in the southern states was universal (well…among those who were allowed to participate in the decision making process.) Notably Lincoln got virtually no votes in the slave states that ended up sticking with the union but even a small minority of Lincoln supporters seemed to prevent a state from leaving the union over him. In Virginia where he got 1% of the vote, enough counties who hated the guys guts nonetheless wanted to stick with the union so badly that they ended up creating an entirely new state. 

Compare this to 2020. In Trumps worst state, Vermont, he got just under 31% of the vote. In Biden’s worst state, Wyoming, he got 26% of the vote. So flip a coin twice, if it lands on the same face both times that’s LESS likely than a randomly selected voter in Vermont or Wyoming going against their state. 

On top of that the US of the 1860s was a much different place with much much more poverty, food insecurity, and chronic, uncured disease. Birth and death rates were much higher—the median age of the population was decades younger and the culture matched that. Life was cheap and people had little to lose. Nowadays the people who would only go outside wearing a mask aren’t going to be starting a war any time soon, and the people who don’t even pull their kids out of schools they think are brainwashing them and just angrily post online aren’t going to start killing them. It’s a fantasy 

That said the ideal solution for the US is more local/state government. Things seem to be evolving this way naturally as the federal government becomes more incompetent and more hamstrung with ever increasing red tape every year 

but with less ability to treat workers as terrible as was done back then.

The conservatism of a person like John Adams is more sustainable but ultimately is becoming extremely rare among conservatives . 

So first we would divide red by blue states and then work towards policies that would bring about some sort of technocratic right wing fascism that is a mix of evola style governance and transhumanism.

In my society, every member would work towards what is best for the country and we would make laws to ensure that happens, but we would have to control culture as well. 

Maybe sterilize family lines which are proven to be bad.

Indoctrinate people in schools where the marxists have previously infiltrated and corrupted.

In fact basically take what the CCP has done, but instead of doing it selfishly for themselves and their party, invert it to do what is good for America. 

American Leftism is still in good alignment with the politics of Roosevelt and LBJ.  Jimmy Carter is still a beloved grand old man within the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party just threw out Liz Cheney, and considers McCain and Romney RINOs with no place in the radically reformatted Republican Party.  Bush, Reagan, Nixon have no place in the modern Republican Party. When Barry Goldwater ran for President in '64 he was the absolute extreme Right of acceptable Americanism post-McCarthy and by 1995, that same Goldwater told the GOP" "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have." Justice John Paul Stevens often noted that he was appointed in 1975 as the most Conservative member of the Supreme Court and retired in 2010 as the most Liberal member of that same court without ever changing a single political principle.

The Right WIng can play "I'm rubber, you're glue" all they want but the fact is that the Right Wing has departed from traditional American values.

As Martin Luther King noted,  “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”   That justice is always more free and more equal and therefore more liberal than the generation before. 

Authoritarians seize back power now and again but history and technology and sheer fucking numbers make authoritarianism increasingly less effective and every swing right a little bit shorter.

As in 2 countries. The southeastern part of the United States and all solidly red states. You won't see liberals supporting such a thing because while this would result in a virtual utopia for the red states, this sort of thing would result in the destruction of blue states because a parasite requires a host. We would likely see another war of Northern aggression backed by 3rd world shit holes like California try to dominate the south so they can keep a hold of their host to leech off of. They obviously would fail because their army would consist of undisciplined mud people, women and trannies who would face strong masculine men who are disciplined and fight with the moral high ground 

If you were only this aroused when you pray to satan's son allah.

That's how NAZIs thought, therefore that's how MAGA thinks but as long as America remains American that is never fucking ever true.  In America, Presidents are just the twat in charge and American ideals are forged and maintained by Americans- which Trump was never really any part of, if we are being honest and certainly he was never capable of understanding.

Trump won't ever win again but also won't ever stop running again because that is his best legal defense and his only effective source of funding.  If the law or his health does not stop him, Trump will run.  If Trump wins the GOP nomination, Cheney will split the ticket.  If any Republican other than Trump wins the GOP, Trump will split the ticket.  The only way the GOP wins in 2024 is if they stop Trump now and only the GOP can stop him.

DeSantis could win under the right circumstance but there will never be a time when he represents the values of the American majority.

The Romneys and McCains and Bushes and Cheneys all live in the same America as the Bidensand the Bernies and are glad and proud to continue to do so. 

US Intel tells us that recent separation movements in Texas, California, and Western Canada all originated with Russian money and Russian employees impersonating locals and agitating the (mostly criminal) radical Right.  The Marjorie Taylor-Greens and Trumps and Gaetzes might enjoy the money they make for talking up separatism but none of those figures have the organizational capacity to actually lead a nation much less found one.

weak assholes afraid to compete on a level playing field.

  Every issue you named is just white men trying to preserve their place at the top of the food chain. In every age there's going to be the rump of conservative codgers who used to be the masters of the  hierarchy and want to freeze the churning wheel of competition just before the ride down

but the principles of Liberalism and Capitalism say that nations that aren't busy growing and changing and adapting and evolving are busy dying. 

If you consider equality a "view imposed" it is only because that is the American character at its most distilled but also, this country may not be made for you.

It takes a certain kind of confident courage to never want superiority in rights or demand that others form a line behind you in the  pursuit of happiness.

Not all who call themselves Americans understand that America is an idea, not a place on the map, and not all born to it are necessarily worthy.

I suspect the divide would be along the lines of one faction under a fully centralized government similar to present day Russia or China and the other half of the country would choose a confederation of free states similar to the EU.

Definitely a 2 state solution.

It will undoubtedly prove the inferiority of liberalism. The blue states can cut off their children's dicks abort all their babies and have their soft fascism while red states will flourish without the depravity and economic turmoil.

It is no coincidence that blue areas always become poor and resemble 3rd world countries while red areas prosper with low crime good economies and family values. 

I live in a blue area now. Trust me, absolute shit hole. Whenever I go on road trips to visit relatives in other blue areas, same thing. Meanwhile when I make put stops in red areas, absolute fucking paradise, every one of them. 

You are a muslim. You have wishful thinking. You want for west to collapse.

Most of the regulars are gone and the average age on this site has dropped twenty years over the past 12 months.

People don't live and identify with their states as countries so much anymore, that I know of.

I suppose some states have a significant more of one party or another,

But states seem a mixed 'enough bag, to me.

Far cry from era right before and during American Civil War, seems to me,

I think Civil War fears of current situation, is excessive.

I'd rather people make their own laws to a degree,

As individuals, city, county, state,

But there's 'still values and actions I'd rather we 'not give people the right to act however they like.

So still a fair number of national laws.

Still I don't think people are going to isolate too much.

Some people do,

Mormons, Amish, Libertarian Free State Project.

"Exodus 3:14 “God replied, 'I am who am. ' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you. '”

The Trinity is right here actually.

God the Father "...voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

God the Son: Jesus, the one being baptized. If we also link this with, "'” John 8:58 “Jesus answered them: 'I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM.” This was the name God gave himself when he first communicated with Moses.:" Then we know that Jesus is God.

God the Holy Ghost "...and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

- So, it is possible for God to not be God?

No.

This is why I brought out the God calls himself God in my earlier argument, because if we were to assume everything in the Bible to be true, then God saying he is God must have been true.

So, is it or is it not in the Bible?

Also, the Trinity is true. God lives outside all physical elements that we are used to. It's just like the box interpretation I made an example to. 

All of everything, Laws of Physics, Biology, Time, Space, everything is the box. But God lives outside the box. 

So, we may not be able to fully comprehend the Trinity, but that doesn't disprove it.

There are other denominations of Christians, who do in fact not believe in the Trinity. But even if the Trinity didn't exist, it wouldn't disprove Christianity. I wouldn't be suprised if it didn't, but I do believe it does, because of the way my denomination interprets the scripture.

.......because he was resurrected......and the Holy Scriptures say it all happened. So if we assume that he did, because he did, then the Bible would be proven true, therefore everything in the Bible would have to be true.

Yes a thing can be 3 & 1 at the same time.

Evidence:

The Bible, which has proven to be true.

Coram Deo
The Trinity is a doctrine that we cannot fully understand, although there is much we can say. But we need not fully understand it in order to affirm it. It is taught in God’s Word, and we are responsible to believe what God’s Word teaches even when complete comprehension escapes us."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/biblical-evidence-trinity

Look at it like this. There is all of this evidence, that Jesus' walked the earth, was a real man, etc. 

Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false historically. In fact a lot of it has been proven true historically. 

So we know that there was a man named Jesus, who walked the Earth, and died. Then shortly after, a sudden new religion pops up, confronting the Jewish Church, and ends up bringing millions of people to Jesus. 

Lets assume that is all the evidence we have.

We already know that the universe had to of had a creator. I have just proved that the universe must of been created by some sort of higher being. 

So let's use the process of elimination for some other religions.

Christianity: A lot of evidence proving that it was telling the truth historically. Hasn't been ever truly contradicted. 

Islam: Actually backs up Christianity more. Muhammad actually believe it or not backed up the claims of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, from the Bible.

All it claims was that an angel came down and said something to Muhammad. Nothing more. 

Buddhism: Actually Buddhists don't believe in a deity or god. Therefore, we have already proven that there has to be a higher being, we can eliminate this one.

Hinduism: This a religion/way of life, that the origin, is culture. No evidence of their Gods to be true.

And these are just the religion's that are the most popular. 

Conclusion: There is more factual evidence of the Bible's truth, than any other religion, and proof of a higher being has also been proven. 

Therefore, God/Yahweh, must be the one true God.

And no you don't know more about my faith than I do. You have countlessly misinterpreted the scripture, and don't understand basic Christian thinking, in a way that I do. 

There is God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost (The Holy Spirit).

They are all at the same time, one being, and three different beings. 

God the Father, sent his son, Jesus (God the Son) down to earth to save us. 

For example, Jesus is just as much as God, and God the Father is, but also is different from him. 

God is a being who we will never really fully comprehend. That is why it is so fascinating to study him in the Bible.

Axioms are circular.

They are self serving premises for any kind of evidence.  Reason is an axiom.  How do we know? Because we can reason our way to it. Experience is an axiom. How do we know? Because our experience tells us so. 

These are the basic tenants of understanding truth. The bible is another - or revelation. How do we know revelation is truth - revelation has revealed it. 

Your argument above against revelation was based in reason. Reason is your axiom. Good for you. But it is not mine.  

Again, why would all of those people all of the sudden, for no apparent reason, leave everything, and risk their lives, just to prove a lie? Because it wasn't a lie. It was the truth.

They are all one, but not at the same time.

Jesus was God the son, who came down to earth in human form, and lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, then rose again 3 days later.

I wonder what Milo’s roommate thinks.

yes, how observant of you. It is called an axiom.  Do you know what that is?

Yep. You couldn't turn a corner in ancient first century Palestine with tripping over someone named Simon.

The most dangerous people in history have been closeted gays. Hitler’s a classic example. 

you must show first that the descriptions aren’t tangibly factual, & for what reason you disagree & that it was tangibly disagreeable..

Trump earned my descriptions with a lifetime of objectionable actions, maybe you’ve been living under a rock for the last few decades or maybe you just weren’t paying attention, either way, bringing you up to speed is not my responsibility.

They are cut from the same cloth, so yeah, maybe so.

I know that, Trump is a symptom of global trends toward divisiveness and autocracy, but he exploited and exacerbated it with a cult of personality based on lies, deception, conspiracy theories, and hatemongering.

and tolerance of diversity makes a society stronger and more resilient.

You are talking nonsense if you think the solution is to try to turn people into robots by imposing a more restrictive way of thinking, values, and beliefs, onto the diversity, that is oppression.  

Thanks for that review, Captain Obvious, but I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on how language works, been using it to communicate with for decades.

Nope, people ARE individuals, and they are individuals IN a society.

What I’m proposing is the real world, where a society is a collection of individual people living together

and a secular democracy is the best way to ensure the people control the state.

I'm quite surprised one of these claimed gospel authors wasn't name Simon. Simon's were everywhere in Jesus' day according to Tradesecret. They were more common than donkey shite.

If it came from the mouth of Tradesecret, then you can guarantee that it is a lie.

That's OK, Trump's not going to be on any ballot in Turkey any time soon anyway.

but it's simple bigotry to define people using labels like you do...and

Yes, the way you see the system is f*cked, it's going to just keep getting worse until we stop seeing labels and start seeing individuals.

There's only two kinds of people in the world, those who think there are only two kinds of people, and those who don't. 

Probably should have worded that better, I'm sorry about that, but what I was trying to say, was that, If God never said that he was God in the bible, then that would disprove that he was God.

Well, what I was trying to point out here, was this question:

Is God a liar? No

Is God a lunatic? No

So, he must be the Lord.

If you actually used the research, then you would again find this statement false.

Yes, dozens of tombs are found empty, but using historical evidence, we learn that no one was buried there to begin with.

And they weren't relatives. And let's just say for a minute your right. How is it possible that all of those people saw the exact same thing at the exact same time?

I wouldn't call that a fake appearance of the dead.

No, we won't be resurrected. Our souls will be resurrected. Not our body's, like Jesus's were.

Objectively false. 

LIFE- Let's say you are born poor farmer in any of these countries today and you would like to be a cook or a truck driver.  That is a totally reasonable and common practice in these countries.  That was not true in 12 Century Europe- if you were born a poor farmer you would die a poor farmer in 999 cases out of every 1000.

BANKING- Banking, moneylending, and charging interest were considered sins under Catholic rule.  Banking was run almost exclusively by Jews for an almost exclusively aristocratic, international set.  The average serf never saw much coinage and never experienced a bank transaction. By contrast, most Western citizens have a bank account today. The price for most transactions were set by the autocrat and only rarely changed during one's lifetime.

Most ordinary goods and services were produced very locally and cost the same whether the quality was excellent or poor.  By contrast, the price for most goods and services today are set by the seller and only a small range of goods and services are controlled by the state.

EDUCATION- most education for the lower classes was considered a sin. Many medival states outlawed literacy and maths for serf and the working classes- such functions were used as instruments of control.

Almost every Westerner has access to a taxpayer-funded education up to adulthood and most states offer a lot of options for continuing and extending education. 

A diverse and agile education system is seen to today as an essential part of any state's capacity to compete.

DUE PROCESS/HABEAS CORPUS- The first due process laws in the west came into being in the 13th century and those rights were at first extended only to barons.

Every citizen of any modern Western democracy enjoys some right to due process, legal counsel and representation, capacity to challenge witnesses and testimony, right of appeal, etc.

You have given one of the only fully relevant responses in the entire thread.

Unfortunately, Yassine will now derail his own thread in an attempt to promote Sharia law.

Genius, Sharia and Islam are more right wing and mistreating of other races and cultures vs the majority in their own nations than any white christian nation you can name right now, so if you're gonna go there, you're pretty dumb.

Tell me something, do you think Muslims are closer to Trump's politics or yours? Think very carefully before throwing out 'phobic' when you don't know what is feared. In fact to be saying such nonsense in 2022 December given what is finally being exposed in Qatar and Iran recently, is sheer ignorance. That is Islam, it's always been Islam.

Actually, let me see how you handle Yassine, our resident Sharia propagandist, in how he proceeds to challenge you. Spread your love of Islam far and wide.

I disapprove of Fuentes because he’s a white supremacist and go figure, but I have a problem with antisemitism, racism, and hatemongering.

Trump is all that and more, he’s a lawless, sociopathic autocrat with a movement that is attacking the very foundations of my country’s democracy and freedoms.  He has undermined the institutions that are foundational to our government and spread divisiveness and hatred. 

I suppose I should have also mentioned Trump's Islamophobia.

"I think Islam hates us." - Donald Trump in 2016

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  

It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact.   

A statement of fact testified to by the only witness who was there.  God.  

1: His testimony about himself.

Now I know what you're thinking. Gods' testimony about himself isn't evidence. But you would be wrong.

"But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again, the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62 NIV).

"Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58 NIV).

"But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:15-16 NIV).

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:29-30 NIV).

“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am." (John 13:13 NIV).

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:6-9 NIV).

All of these examples show God telling us that he is God, which someone who isn't God wouldn't do.

In the wise words of C.S. Lewis," Someone who claims to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Book III, Chapter 3).

So, let's pick one of those. If he's claiming to be God and isn't, then he isn't just a great moral teacher, he is either a liar, lunatic, or the Lord.

2: The Eyewitness Testimony of those who Knew Him.

Consider this:

Jesus disciples abandon their occupations and their families to spread the news that Jesus Christ, the son of God, rose from the dead. And they were willing to be beaten, tortured, starved, jailed, and killed for sharing that message.

Now those kinds of things have happened in other religious traditions too, but the difference is this:

These people were actual eyewitnesses to what they were claiming.

So how likely is it that all of them would sacrifice so much, for something they knew to be untrue?

3: The Resurrection

The Resurrection was when Jesus rose from the dead in front of hundreds of people. Now that is not something a normal person can do.

Now I know that a lot of people will ask for proof that the resurrection really happened?

The argument for the actual historicity of the resurrection, comes from this man:

Professor Gary Habermas.

He studied more that 2000 academic sources, and identified several pieces of evidence, on which the vast majority of scholars believe.

Publications of Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (garyhabermas.com)

Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (garyhabermas.com)

A Review of Gary Habermas’ Claim that 75% of Scholars believe in the Historicity of the Empty Tomb – Escaping Christian Fundamentalism (wordpress.com)

The Historical Evidence for the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus - Evidence for Easter (Part 3) - Renew

Scholars who were both Atheist, and Christian, believed him and his evidence.

Almost all biblical experts agree to this historical timeline.

"Almost all Biblical experts agree that:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lost hope.

4. The tomb was later found empty after his interment.

     (accepted by 75% of scholars)

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place at the very beginning of the church.

8. They preached the message of Jesus's resurrection in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried. 

9. The gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

10.  Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. 

11. James, a family skeptic, was converted to the faith, when he believed he saw the resurrected Christ.

12. Saul (Paul) was converted to the faith because he believed he saw the risen Jesus."

Gary Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope, 2003, pp. 9-10.

Now let me ask you this:

If an overwhelming majority of experts agree that these things actually occurred, then what other theory explains these facts?

And If Jesus really did resurrect from the dead, then was he really just a man?

Nick Fuentes holds a leadership position in the Trump movement, last seen at a campaign strategy session with Trump a week after declaring his run for 2024. 

He's an important figure in the Trump movement, with prominant positions on several of Trumps new cabinet committess, insurrection conspiracy, anti-semitism (of course), domestic divisiveness, and most imporant, he's is a essential figure of Trump's white supremacist coalition. 

Catholic values, old values. Not American individualism, republicanism, and liberalism

Yes I do agree with him, and I have a problem with non-Catholics if they make it a problem

Essentially, this means everyone simply standing on US soil is protected by the Constitution and has equal rights under the law.

Peaceful assembly

Right to bear arms

Right to petition the government

Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Right to due process

Right to trial by jury

Right to a legal counsel

Within the US Constitution, the 14th amendment ensures the right to equal protection under the law.

This amendment states that any US governing body must govern without discrimination to anyone within US territory.

A 12th century serf enjoyed none of these rights, even in his home town.

Nobles might have been granted some of these rights by some autocrat but such rights were just as eaily taken away if met with disapproval.

Ok first I will prove that the universe was created by a god, then I will prove that God to be Jesus/Yahweh, in a later post.

It all comes down to time.

Definition of Time: "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole."

definition of time - Google Search

Time itself had to of had a beginning.

Why Time Had A Beginning : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

"So, people attempt to construct alternative theories where gravity and thus space and time can be described as quantized fields. However, irrespective of these ideas, there is always a transition from the quantum to the classical realm. Even if linear flowing time wouldn’t make sense in a quantum space-time, it has to as the quantum cosmos transitions to the classical cosmos, we live in. In a sense, as Saint Augustine had remarked some 16 centuries ago, space and time emerge with Creation. Here, Creation is precisely this transition from a quantum to a classical time. Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory."

"You couldn’t think of a distance between two points or of a time interval between two events. Everything fluctuates wildly. Physics as we know it falls apart."

Time is measurable. It's called spacetime.

ESA Science & Technology - Measuring spacetime curvature

Definition of Space Time: "the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum."

what is spacetime - Google Search

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, we can move on to The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory

What is the Big Bang Theory? | Space

"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how the universe began. Simply put, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."

Ok now we take both of those claims and put them together.

Time had a beginning, which is when the universe began.

That is when the Big Bang happened.

Now I ask all of you this. 

How did the "infinitely hot and dense single point" come into existence, at the beginning of time, if there was nothing there to create, that point?

Answer is: There was something there to create that point, and that thing was a god, or a higher being of some sort.

That is just a scratch of my evidence proving a god, now I will return with evidence proving why the god that created the universe is Jesus/Yahweh.

Genesis 1:1

Do you have any evidence/arguments that would prove that humans have souls/immaterial minds?

Evidence against the immaterial part of the mind is Phineas Gage [1].

Popular reports of pre-accident Gage often depict him as a hardworking, pleasant man prior to the accident. Post-accident, these reports describe him as a changed man, suggesting that the injury had transformed him into a surly, aggressive alcoholic who was unable to hold down a job.

Damage to the Brain = damage to the mind, therefore mind is not separate from the brain. 

[1]

https://www.verywellmind.com/phineas-gage-2795244

I'll repeat the question:

What is the name of "the Modern Western Liberal Government" of which you speak.  Which state does it govern?

Please answer the question as directly as possible.

You're saying that Richard I can't be called an autocrat for laying waste to the English treasury and men of fighting age because he only recognized himself as the sole inheritor of any natural rights as king

You're saying that so long as Israel refuses to acknowledge Palestinians as citizens, that government need not respect any Palestinian human rights.

Well, I mean there are a lot of ways I can prove his existence. But I was hoping someone else would put in why they don't believe it so I can disprove their argument.

Say you are Jew in a 1944 Nazi deathcamp or a black man on a Missisippi Plantation in 1855.  Would you call that greater government control or less government control than being Jewish or Black in say, 21st America?

His ideas make him a danger. 

To himself and others. Being a monarchist in today's time will get you laughed out of most places.

Combine that with his views that women are harmful parasites, he has certainly spread a narrative that will make it more difficult for his followers to have a healthy interaction with women. 

And the fact that he's a holocaust denier who openly praised Hitler? Oh boy, this is a perfect recipe for disaster. 

He is a liability at this point and the amount of delusions this guy rambles on about makes me think he is in desperate need of psychological help. Were it not for his large fanbase, he would immediately become a social pariah.

This guy's beliefs and ideas are not functional in this century or in modern society.