Part 10 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Maybe it's you that is in misery. "Like they say if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen"...no pun intended...lol

BTW this thread is still going strong as ever, we are in our 10th chapter now!...choo!...choo!

 

You started good but then you began to fantasize yourself...lol

Sorry to burst your bubble but religious faith is here to stay until the end of time.

 

No he didn't. He never revealed to them that he was/is in existence. Can't follow the rules of something if never been informed of that something.

 

Because there are multiple definitions of 'fact' that could work in the context of what Gorn Captain said. If you are uncertain what he means by the term, then ask him, don't just assume that he is using the exact definition that you want him to be using.

So, you're choosing definitions of words to make his statement false. Yep, that's the dishonesty I was talking about.

Then you don't know what experimentation in science refers to. It doesn't mean "recreate the exact conditions of something."

You mean like constantly tracking the area of and thickness of the ice in the poles? They already do that.

 

Why should I be concerned about what he is or was thinking. It makes no difference to me. Remember, I am the one who is evaluating that data for my use. It seems more likely that you are the one who has a desperate concern.

Nope. I am choosing definitions of words that are applicable to the scenario, the scenario being this and any other discussion in the Religion section of this forum. Here is another example:
Faith:
faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust."

so you see, rstones199... as I have said all along, your logical proof and your material evidence has no bearing on my faith and your logical proof and material evidence is irrelevant with regard to my faith or the faith of any other Christian. Too bad for you.

In this case it does. Numbers are only a representation of something and not the real thing. So when you are playing with numbers, you are playing with the imagination.

But they are not melting the ice at the poles... so it is all speculation.. guesswork... they don't know.

 

So, you're entirely unconcerned with whether or not you are accurately interpreting what Gorn was saying? That actually makes a lot of sense. Basically, you're making up what you want them to be saying and then arguing against what you want them to be saying.

No, you're choosing vague definitions that give you the ability to argue speciously that anything can be a fact or proof. You think that nobody has noticed that you choose the same definitions for 'fact' and 'proof' regardless of the context of what another person is saying? You think that I didn't notice that you never responded to me saying that by the definition you are using for 'proof' that an opinion, and really anything could be proof, despite you saying to the contrary? The same could be said about your definition of 'fact'.

I'm not rstones.

What the bloody hell does that mean? Numbers are used to represent something real. Obviously the number one is not literally a ball when we are talking about hypothetically adding one ball and another ball. So, you're saying that we can't figure out that 1 (ball) + 1 (ball) = 2 (balls) because we are "playing with our imaginations"?

No, they melt on their own... which we measure.

 

nice bit of illogic there.

Apparently not all church doctrine.

My point was you didn't find mine.

Take off the grammar nazi uniform. It is unbecoming.

Ha. Yet another lame attempt at deflection using the misinterpretation word game.

SUBSTANCE.

 

Moral values are absolutely subjective and not given to us by God. Morality existed long before judaism or christianity. Morality was an aspect of EVERY ancient human society regardless of their religious mythology.

The argument that morality only exists as god given is demonstrably erroneous. Studies in both cultural anthropology and philosphy quickly dispel this notion.

It seems moral codes have been around as long human culture has, which is way longer than the idea of yaweh or jehova have been in existence.

Interestingly, the golden rule seems to prevade moral codes regardless of location or time.
Seems the notion of reciprocity was around long before Moses climbed a mountain.

 

But all of the morals are founded upon the one axiom common to every culture, which is to love thy neighbor.



Matt. 5:44: (New Testament)
But I say unto you, Do Love your enemies,

(1) Lev. 19:18 (Torah)
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

(2) Judaiam: (Talmud; Shab. 31a)
"What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Hillel said)

(3) Islam: (Sunnah)
No one of you is believer until he desires for his brother that which he deires for himself.

(4) Brahmanism: (Mahabharata 5:1517)
This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause pain if done to you.

(5) Buddhism: (Udana-Varga 5;1
Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.

(6) Confusianism: (Analects 15:23)
Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness:
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

(7) Taoism: Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien
Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss.

( Zoroastrianism: (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5)
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.


Hillel said: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary"

 

I do not interpret the golden rule as "love thy neighbour", but I agree that the concept of consideration of reciprocal treatment can be found in virtually every ancient culture, regardless of location or time.

 

My statement is NOT an opinion....it is a FACT.

When a person is present proven concrete evidence which is capable of disproving an aspect of their religious dogma assumptions or mental ideological indoctrination and when such a person is presented with such evidence instead of embracing the truth of the facts they instead in an illogical fashion attempt to make the conversation about the person providing the facts instead of making the conversation about the facts themselves well....that is enough evidence as far as human behavioral patterns of a person embracing even a LIE....rather than to admit the truth or facts to label that person in DENIAL OR EVEN POSSIBLY BEING DRIVEN INTO A DELUSIONAL STATE.

Any member, moderator or any person reading what you have posted in reply to my verifiable concrete facts I have posted in reply to your challenge....even though I challenged you first....even though as well any member, moderator of person reading would also agree that the ONUS of providing PROOF is upon the STORY TELLER....not the person asking or providing proof of facts contrary to the STORY TELLERS story....ANYONE READING YOUR REPLY.....knows without a doubt.......

...........................................they KNOW you simply cannot HANDLE THE TRUTH....or the FACTS.

AboveAlpha

 

And again, your alleged "verifiable concrete facts" do not compel my mind to accept them as 'true'. Thus definitively stating that you have not provided any "PROOF".

 

Proof*

*According to a hand-picked definition for proof where proof could be anything that compels his mind. This can include dreams, opinions, fictional books, soothsayers, bread with the image of Jesus on it, etc.

 

Not much hand picking involved considering it is the first definition listed at www.thefreedictionary.com/proof . It appears functional to me.

 

Of course it is functional, it just is practically useless as anything can be considered as proof under that definition.

 

Yeah RIGHT!!!

By your flawed reasoning you could claim that a 1 inch cube of liquid water then frozen....which will cause some expansion....and I take that 1 inch cube of ice and place it in a 1 inch high 1 inch deep and 2 inch long on the inside rectangular glass container.....and a place this 1 inch frozen cube of water in the center of this 2 inch long laying flat and 1 inch high and wide container...and this at one time 1 cubic inch of water has expanded in freezing a few Millimeters higher but I can still slide it in the center of this 2 x 1 x 1 inch container even if it sticks out the top a bit and then I say to you......when this ice melts it will fill this 2 inch long by 1 inch high by 1 inch wide on the inside container EXACTLY 1/2 inch high by 2 inches long by 1 inch wide WITH LIQUID WATER.......

..............and by you reasoning you would say to me.....WELL....BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN THIS OR HAVE EVER SEEN THIS IT IS JUST A THEORY AND WE DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN THIS WILL FILL THAT CONTAINER WITH LIQUID WATER THE WAY YOU SAY IT WILL.

And if you said that.....which is basically what you are saying as far as the whole Polar Ice Melt and just how much land mass would be covered with water thing..........YOU WOULD BE AND ARE WRONG!!!

You see....we have things known as SCIENCE and MATHEMATICS.

We have these things called GEOMETRY and CHEMISTRY and we know that when FROZEN WATER MELTS....it becomes LIQUID WATER.

And we actually even KNOW how much LIQUID WATER will exist from melting SOLID FROZEN WATER....as if a CUBIC MILE OF FROZEN WATER is melted it will actually exist as less than a cubic mile of liquid water as water EXPANDS when it freezes.

I know all this LEARNIN' of Math and Science and basic State Change behaviors might seem tough for you but it get's easier and I would be MORE THAN HAPPY if you would like....to spend some time bringing you up to date in such fields of study as I was an Assistant Professor and I have been told I am a good teacher.

Look....I could care less whether you believe in GOD or not as Science, Mathematics, Physics, Quantum and Biological Evolution have ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT WITH ANYONE'S BELIEF IN A GOD.

Just about every major religion....almost all Protestant Groups, Roman Catholic and even Muslim sects....have come to terms with the realities of Evolution, Physics and Cosmology, Genetic Engineering...and many other studies and fields and sciences that are responsible for improvements in living in the modern world.

All these religions have come to understand that the Old Testament and it's stories were by design meant to teach and bring in line ancient man who needed such guidance.

I believe such guidance is still needed today and one cannot understate some of the benefits of Faith and a person having a belief in a GOD....but such guidance and such beliefs are not necessary or needed by all of us.

So....Noah's Arch is a NICE STORY.....but it is just a story.....and 99% off all the religions and religious leaders INCLUDING THE POPE.....agree....it was just a nice story....and most likely had it's basis in reality 5600 years ago when the Med sea flooded into the once Fresh Water Black Sea....as this Black Sea deluge is a fact and this event occurred at the same time approx. when Noah's experiences are said to have happen.....BUT IT WAS NOT NOR COULD IT HAVE BEEN WORLD WIDE.

99% of all Religion's Leadership agree with this.

AboveAlpha.....p.s....Ahhhye do Learnin' reeeel guuuoooood!!

 

On the contrary. If anything can be considered as 'proof' under that definition then that definition would not exist, because some things do not compel my mind to accept them as 'true'.

 

Except that definition doesn't solely apply to you. The definition doesn't say "what compels Incorporeal's mind to accept something as true".

 

You are absolutely correct. It applies to everyone. Therefore, all Christians have the same right as I do and all non-theists have that same right. Hello to the return of futility recognition. . . and the struggle goes on. No 'PROOF' from either side. No need to demand a 'proof' because the likelihood of any 'proof' ever being produced is slim to none unless one is exchanging ideas between like minded people.

 

He often attempts the semantic argument, selecting a single definition from a list of definitions of a particular word or phrase.
what I find extremely amusing is that the ridiculousness of such wordgames is completely lost on him, and he appears to think he is being clever.

 

Clever enough to make you and others resort to making innuendos regarding my abilities. BTW: I still have not seen any "wordgames" being played. What are the names of some of those "wordgames"?

 

That is so true but sadly for the non-believers what comfort will they have? What is going to comfort them? They have no one to fall back on as they see their lives slowly slipping away from them. You ponder what will they be thinking in those very last moments of their eventual deaths, will most of them cave from the pressure and cry out oh Lord I'm so sorry!, please forgive me! have mercy on me! I want to live forever!

For the believer, yes, absolutely we want to live forever with our Lord God in His Kingdom of Heaven that He has promised us. And so we can face our own personal end here on earth for we know better days are ahead! Oh what a gratifying day it will be! There will be much rejoicing in Heaven!

We haven't created the narrative, our Lord did and we believe Him with all of our hearts minds & souls! It gives us great joy & happiness.

The narrative came from the Lord and so it makes it true and yes it is indeed soothing. What fear are you talking about?

You must be talking about the fear that the Godless non-believers will face. The believers will be exempt from such fear for they will be overwhelmed with great joy, knowing they will soon dwell in the Kingdom of Heaven with their Lord and others who are saved...Haleluyah! The Promised Land is on the horizon!...Haleluyah!

 

I do not make any innuendo. I made a direct observation.

And I find it amusing that your semantic game playing apparently goes right over your head.

As for names of these games. I shall immediately dub "substituting a secondary definition to the one intended by the author" as "no matter's defining game".

 

Then why did you say: "If anything can be considered as 'proof' under that definition then that definition would not exist, because some things do not compel my mind to accept them as 'true'."? That quote makes it sound like you think the writers of the dictionary definition hand-crafted that definition for you.

What do you mean by "like minded people"? And if you are saying there is no need to demand proof, why do you consistently do so?

 

Scripture doesn't tell us what He was writing and so I'm not going to speculate.

The Bible for the most part is concerned with the messages it is conveying over to the reader and so it doesn't go into much details, like for example the Exodus story, the bible never gives us the name of the Pharaoh, or give the birth date of Moses.

Well your conclusion is just an opinion and so you can't say it is obviously true.