-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Bible - Why Trust It
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Pot, meet Kettle. Are your words all we need? The difference is that I’m stating known facts about translation. People know this stuff. It needs no “proof.” You’re spouting some apparently secret dogma that begs evidence. Which do you think is more compelling?All that, and nothing to support it. Oh right. Your words are all we need.
As usual with your bunch, all we get is subterfuge and attitude, no real argument or evidentiary position. Y’all really need to dream up a new MO.
nPeace
Veteran Member
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Give us something other than vapid claptrap, and the tune might change. So far, you’ve provided no evidence for your outlandish claims. Give us some debate meat, we’ll chew it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If he had any he would have posted it a long time ago.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
@TagliatelliMonster I actually forgot to mention...
So since you don't see no whales morphing from four legged creatures... You have faith in it.
Have a good day.
I don't need faith, since I have evidence.
Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence - Articles
The evolution of whales
Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia
I keep telling you... one has no need to invoke faith to accept claims, if those claims can stand on their own merrits.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because I know HOW the sun rises and sets. Not merely that it does, but HOW it does what it does and WHY. Because I understand the very mechanics that make that happen.
And because we understand the mechanics thereof, we ALSO understand what kind of things would have to happen for the sunrise/sunset NOT to happen. And each and every single plausible way that that could happen, ends in the total extinction of all life on the planet.
This is called knowledge.
No. Just like you don't require "faith" to know that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to the ground and not shoot off into space.
You don't. All you have are claims.
I know this, because:
- if there was demonstrable knowledge, aking to the knowledge that results in predicting with sunrises with extreme precisions, for a creator, then Nobel prizes would have been handed out for that and it would be common knowledge. But that's not the case.
- if there was demonstrable knowledge and for some reason it didn't become common knowledge, surely forums such as these would be spammed up with that evidence, to prove all non-believers wrong. That doesn't happen either.
- all people, like you, who continue to claim that they have such demonstrable knowledge, always seem to be completely unable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that knowledge. All you folks do is claim you have this knowledge. Instead of claiming it, show it.
Claiming it doesn't make it so.
What evidnece?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I find it distrubing that that poster also felt the need to rate your post with "winner", noting full agreement.
So apparantly the poster indeed thinks of us as "swine" and not being "worthy" of his so-called amazing "demonstrable knowledge" and "evidence".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Creationists, especially YEC's simply cannot understand the concept of evidence. In fact they cannot afford to let themselves understand the concept of scientific evidence.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yeah. Lots of “Christian humility” there, huh?I find it distrubing that that poster also felt the need to rate your post with "winner", noting full agreement.
So apparantly the poster indeed thinks of us as "swine" and not being "worthy" of his so-called amazing "demonstrable knowledge" and "evidence".
Goodman John
Active Member
My apologies; I seem to have gotten lost in the teapot tempest going on here. Would you be so kind as to repeat your question?
nPeace
Veteran Member
You don't need faith. You have evidence. !!!!!!!!!!!???
May Jehovah bless you and safeguard you.
May Jehovah make his face shine upon you, and may he favor you. May Jehovah lift up his face toward you and grant you peace.
Thank you Jehovah.
TagliatelliMonster, what is evidence?I need to take a breather before looking at your next post.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Sometimes we go off the rails a bit, but I think everyone seems to be doing a fairly good job of maintaining focus. Still having a go at the Bible.
I think you might have gotten lost in the post, so I don't mind isolating the question.
In your view, whom is Jesus referring to at Luke 12:4, 5?
nPeace
Veteran Member
If you were physically blind, would you know that the sun rises and sets? You might say, you can feel it.Because I know HOW the sun rises and sets. Not merely that it does, but HOW it does what it does and WHY. Because I understand the very mechanics that make that happen.
And because we understand the mechanics thereof, we ALSO understand what kind of things would have to happen for the sunrise/sunset NOT to happen. And each and every single plausible way that that could happen, ends in the total extinction of all life on the planet.
This is called knowledge.
No. Just like you don't require "faith" to know that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to the ground and not shoot off into space.
You don't. All you have are claims.
I know this, because:
- if there was demonstrable knowledge, aking to the knowledge that results in predicting with sunrises with extreme precisions, for a creator, then Nobel prizes would have been handed out for that and it would be common knowledge. But that's not the case.
- if there was demonstrable knowledge and for some reason it didn't become common knowledge, surely forums such as these would be spammed up with that evidence, to prove all non-believers wrong. That doesn't happen either.
- all people, like you, who continue to claim that they have such demonstrable knowledge, always seem to be completely unable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that knowledge. All you folks do is claim you have this knowledge. Instead of claiming it, show it.
Claiming it doesn't make it so.
What evidnece?
Correct? How do you know what it is that you are feeling? Yes. Someone may tell you?
What if your sense of sensation was not working correctly? Worst yet, what if it were totally insensitive - dead?
You might just have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.
What if you are spiritually blind?
What is you are spiritually dead?
You might have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.
Oh wait...
There is no such thing as spiritual... Right?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But that's not evidence. No one has seen God, measured God, quantified God. No one. That's why we must accept that there is no objective evidence for a God that we can hold out here in front of ourselves and measure. It's all interior. It's all subjective. It's all intuitive. End the end, it's all metaphor.If you were physically blind, would you know that the sun rises and sets? You might say, you can feel it.
Correct? How do you know what it is that you are feeling? Yes. Someone may tell you?
What if your sense of sensation was not working correctly? Worst yet, what if it were totally insensitive - dead?
You might just have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.
What if you are spiritually blind?
What is you are spiritually dead?
You might have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.
Oh wait...
There is no such thing as spiritual... Right?
Goodman John
Active Member
Sometimes we go off the rails a bit, but I think everyone seems to be doing a fairly good job of maintaining focus. Still having a go at the Bible.
I think you might have gotten lost in the post, so I don't mind isolating the question.
In your view, whom is Jesus referring to at Luke 12:4, 5?
Luke 12:4 appears to be in reference to worldly oppressors, ie, those who would oppose Jesus' followers. Once you're dead- by hook or crook- they are powerless to do anything else to you, so they can go bite a big one. Sure, they may have your body, but it's just meat and bone- *you* are already long gone.
12:5, on the other hand, appears to be a reference to God. (In my view, this indicates God's selection of those souls which are pure enough to be readmitted to the spiritual realm and rejection of those which are not; those not being up to snuff are sent back to the physical realm- this world being Hell in itself- for another attempt at redemption.) ((For mainstream Christians, it would likely indicate God casting people into Hell, it being in their mind the ultimate eternal punishment.))
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Please help me with this. I must be confused.
Tell me, what is evidence?
For example, what is the evidence that someone is really, really hungry?
nPeace
Veteran Member
At least you agree the killer is God. That's good
So do you associated the word kill, or destroy, in those verses, to mean something other than kill or destroy? Why?
The first use of the word kill in literal, as you agreed, so why now would one make the second use figurative? Are they not the same word?
.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I didn’t say that evidence was necessary in order for something to be reality. There are stars for which we don’t yet have evidence. But they still exist. Evidence is objective. There is nothing objective we can discern about God. It’s all subjective. God is an interior, intuitive proposal. You intuit God. But you don’t have evidence for God.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Evidence is objective to whom?
You still haven't told me what is evidence. I get the impression that some here are equating evidence with proof of something (particular).
For example...
Something tugs at my shirt.
I see nothing, but it's evidence of something. I have evidence... of something. I don't have to know what that something is. Do I?.
So do I not have evidence?