It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Our Mission
We love Jesus and spreading His message! We are a nonprofit Christian organization with the goal of spreading and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We primarily do this in video form. We create videos to showcase a library of content that is creative and fun, yet will possess significant theological depth. This ministry intends to specialize in reaching the current generation, as well as future generations, with the power of digital video, social media, and whatever new technologies the future may bring.
@Risico007 You are assuming the account of the Bible is literal. We don't even know if there was a crucifixion. Even if there was we have no reason to assume that his disciplines believed in a physical resurrection shortly after his death, that Jesus was buried in a private tomb, with a stone impossible to move, that there was indeed an empty tomb. And you assume that very early Christianity (and we're talking days now) was such a thread to the Roman empire that they'd give such importance to their dead leader. For all we know the historical Jesus if he existed was buried in a communal tomb and Romans were none the wiser when weird tales of him coming back from the dead came about.
The reason they didn't do that is that Christianity only became a 'nuisance' to the Romans decades later (wiki states 64AD as when they started persecuting them). At the time of his death the Romans had no reason to parade his body around to quell Christianity as he only had 12 followers (well 11 given Judas went and topped himself, call it 10 if you count Peter's gutless denunciation of him). The masses were the ones that called for him to be crucified and Barabbas set free so there simply were no Christians making a nuisance for the Romans that this would be an issue for them.
In addition to that you again follow the classic flawed logic of the religious by inferring that because of X then Y must be true:
'the Romans didn't do that which once again shows there was no body in the tomb'
Or it shows that the Romans were short of staff that day, or that the disciples took the body off to a tomb in secret and the Romans didn't know where to look, or the Romans simply couldn't be arsed as it was the final of Gladiators on the telly live from the Coliseum.
Just like you took a cursorary (sic) look too and I'm sure it was also an over sight (sic) on your part rather than an attempt to mis represent (sic) the group when you claimed 'on this board I see a lot of doctors and nurses' but failed to mention the hypnotherapist (President), stetson sporting person of no obvious credentials (secretary) nail bar owner, coffee shop worker ('other board members') and the life coach (business manager).
The key difference being that apart from the business manager (who is listed under 'staff') all the people I listed are actually on the board whereas Dr Janice Holden, Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr Nancy Clark and Dr. Diane Corcoran are all listed as appearing on committees which is not the same thing at all. Who's mis representing (sic) now?
Happy to hold my hands up here as you have (for once) given some facts that aren't compromised by being from a body subsidised by a Christian group.
But I would offer two mitigating factors before you start championing the religious scientist:
1. The vast majority of these scientists will have originated from Europe or the USA where Christianity is the dominant religion by tradition. It doesn't necessarily mean they were avid believers (although they may well all be - I have no data) merely a product of their upbringing.
Einstein a good example as on the list you supply he is categorised as Jewish yet:
'Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.'
That seems to be more like a man who doesn't really know rather than someone who is a firm believer as you seem to be inferring (once again incorrectly).
The point is if history had been different and Africa or South America had turned out to be where modern civilisation had taken hold then all these Nobel winners would be listed as being sun worshippers or goat bones blessed by the village medicine man followers.
2. The awards date back 100 years to a time when religion still had a strong hold on society. Without having time to plough through data I'd say it's a fair likelihood that the first 50 years say has a higher concentration of believers than the last 50 simply because it was less acceptable to be an atheist then. And if you wait another 100 years that percentage will drop further as religion continues to have less hold on civilised societies. Although I'm just throwing this out there as a hypothesis before people accuse me of acting like the religious and coming to conclusions based on zero evidence.
That said I disagree with the Wiz on one thing: I don't think Barabbas ever existed.
It’s surprisingly a longer list then the two wizard pat and lud would have you believe
So I see because the video series was put together by a Christian you all are gonna throw not just the baby out with bath water but the tub the bathroom and a large portion of the house fantastic let me ask an honest question to the three of you
Did he following people exist
Alexander the Great
Julius Ceasar
And Cleopatra
And if so what evidence do we have for these people ever existing?
If I say that I have no idea whether these people existed, does that make it more or less likely that God exists?
Plus, nobody has claimed that any other three were special in a "miracle" way. They were flesh and blood. So the level of evidence required is lower. God and the Son of God etc is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Evidence can and is undermined by the source. If the source has a vested interest or have put the cart before the hourse, the the evidence is undermined. Scientists realise that thier research can be tainted by internal agendas etc so they have a peer review process so that their evidence can be scrutinised.
Religion rejects the process of peer review for obvious reasons. Those of faith seem to have two defintions of evidence. The evidence that is used in every other walk of life and the evidence that is used to justify their faith. A total lack of honesty and integrity.
I'm sure I'm not alone amongst your fans in enjoying these little trailers you give to tease the content we can look forward to in your next outpouring.
Shame you don't deliver on them.
"Force equals mass times acceleration" is just true. It doesn't matter if it came from Newton or a three year old or a Martian.
And yet you fail to realize these men of science are believers in the following
Life after death
Heaven
Hell
Jesus Christ
Etc
This feels like an endless cycle
Atheist argument “science is on our side”
Christian “ sure if you don’t count this huge list of scientists who believe in the resurrection”
Atheist argument “well of course not those people and besides it doesn’t matter they are Christian or not”
Sorry maybe I am missing the point but you do realize their Christian view shaped their scientific beliefs right?
Also another fun fact as patb said I am trying to distract people from Christianity by bringing in other ancient people... not quite first and for most the three I mentioned all have biographies written way after Christ’s time on the earth and those are the earliest also all ancient biographies have miracles on them ever single one though maybe you have no issue with Alexander the Great fighting dinosaurs in India (look it up)
Is this sciency enough for you wiz kid
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/athiests-religious-people-intelligence-smarter-study-imperial-college-london-a8183131.html
Not maybe, you are missing the point.
Science is not a belief system - it's a fact system.
You don't believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4. You know it . If our total science knowledge cannot answer a question, then it is an unknown. With some theories on the books, yet to be proved or disproved.
Force equals mass times acceleration. How, in anyway has this been shaped by any religious belief? If an individual's religion got in the way of their attempts at establishing facts, then they are very poor scientists indeed (arguably, not scientists at all). In the same way that a detective's personal religious beliefs should never get in the way of their investigtion.
What scientific fact has been shaped by Christian beliefs?
PS Note how few UK politicians are lining up to support OFSTED on this issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42902864
"Religious extremists are using schools to narrow children's horizons and "pervert education", England's chief inspector of schools has warned."
PPS the scariest thing I have seen for a long time (these are grown adults!!!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-42892005/st-francis-xavier-relic-visits-dozens-of-canadian-cities
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Yes because these people clearly aren’t smart
You're joking now right?
The opening statement: 'This conference is sponsored by the International Institute of Integral Human Sciences'.
http://iiihs.org/IIIHS_2.html
Not that many serious scientific bodies mention religion up front if they want to be taken seriously.
Then 21.09 a plug for Jeff's (remarkably thin for someone presenting categorical evidence of the afterlife) tome. I'd imagine that whatever evidence he's uncovered Jeff would be unlikely to say 'Sorry folks it's all bollocks' as he's got himself a nice meal ticket thanks to gullible people who want this to be true so that they don't have to face up to the harsh reality of death.
Any chance of you ever providing a source that isn't compromised by being funded by quasi religious groups or personal commercial interests?
Maybe you could offer us something from the WHO or the Lancet rather than amateurishly filmed footage in the back room at a cranks convention?
But that's by the by. We're just repeating ourselves here and Dr Jeff recounts nothing that can be classed as 'evidence' for anything at all. He merely outlines some inexplicable characteristics of NDEs and then based on seemingly nothing more than people recounting that they felt love and peace erroneously concludes that this must therefore prove that God and the afterlife exists.
You and the bunch of 'scientists' you keep wheeling out remind me of Arnold J Rimmer every time they encounter something random floating through space that they don't understand:
Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean that any crackpot hypothesis you bolt onto it is by default the truth.
Terrifying the general gutlessness of politicians to confront this head on. Until that happens the process of religion being relegated into something you practice in your own home if you so choose but the rest of us do not have to see or hear about will be slow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/28/theresa-mays-sincerity-christian-faith-refreshing-change-politics/
Dictionary definition:
faith
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
That's basically how we ended up invading Iraq; shit all evidence (the sexed up dossier the modern equivalent of the bible) and a politician who simply knew it was the right thing to do.
Wasn't that more just a case of reacting to political correctness gone mad than anything?
More like whining from the C of E backed up by May. They claimed that an Easter eggs hunt had no mention of "Easter" anywhere. That was false. They said the founder of Cadbury was a Christian who celebrated Easter, Christmas and so on... Except that he was a Quaker so he did NOT celebrate Easter so that was false as well. And Easter eggs are Pagan to begin with so that whole controversy was C of E trying to be relevant and the PM wasting her time.
Wonder if this scientifically proven method works for cancer and aids too?