| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Religion, the Bible, Gods & All; Discussion of the divine or lack thereof | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 25 2009, 03:29 AM (2,310 Views) | |
| Post #256 Jul 31 2009, 09:56 AM | Noel Cookman |
| "supernatural evidence" . . . interesting. Is this an oxymoron? I mean, "evidence" having been taken in our discussions as having only one requirement - that it be natural - naturally observable, scientific, etc. I think you meant to re-state your former requirement that it be "extraordinary;" which is different in substance from "supernatural." |
 
|
 
|
 |
| Post #257 Jul 31 2009, 01:41 PM | Huxley |
| Whether it is supernatural or extraordinary, evidence has to be that which we can recognise. You don't get to make the rules; you know what evidence is required and you can supply none. So move on. |
 
|
  | |
|
|
|
| Post #258 Sep 5 2009, 09:58 PM | Perry |
|
In a bit of mind-wandering, t'other day, I remembered that I'd never 'called' Noel on his assertion about other dimensions, as far as a reference from the Boys Own Book of Beliefs goes. Viz. Where does the buybull say such things as that, Noel? Look up "pit" in Job 33. And perhaps "heaven" in Gen 28:12, too. |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #259 Sep 6 2009, 09:48 AM | Huxley |
| Oh FFS. I can hear the floorboards and skirting boards groaning as we speak. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #260 Oct 21 2009, 04:31 AM | Noel Cookman |
The "buybull" may or may not say anything about it. I've never read it. The Bible addresss it throughout and I would be happy to share the information with anyone who had the slightest respect for the text. Why do you ask? And what does it matter of such information was contained therein? You have no regard for it anyway. Such an exercise on my part (to provide information, context, etc) is a waste of my time; and, I think a waste of yours as well. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #261 Oct 21 2009, 12:06 PM | Joe E. Holman |
| Nevermind that you have no evidence for either dimension, and nevermind that you think we or at least some of us won't respect the evidence. It's the fact that you would consider working through the evidence for a god who tortures his children. That, to me, is the amazing part. And you can't say that God annihilates souls, as you have admitted to me that you believe, AND that hell is in another dimension, the same dimension as god. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #262 Oct 22 2009, 05:36 AM | Carmel1110 |
That's probably true, Noel, but imagine that the situation were reversed. Suppose a theist of another religion made claims that their particular brand of mythology is the "right" one, or even proved God's existence. Would you take the time to evaluate these claims by reading or "doing the homework", as you termed it, the corresponding religious texts, eg. The Qu'ran, The Bhagavad Gita, The Torah, the Dharma? If the answer is "No", then you'll understand why many skeptics have no interest in the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #263 Oct 24 2009, 04:48 AM | Perry |
That's code for it isn't there, right? From whence comes the pretentious, "You have no regard for it?" My equally pretentious assertion is that you have no regard to truth. You will never admit the possibility of being wrong. I will. Show me where 'hell' is mentioned in the OT (that word) as being in another dimension. Hell occurs in 31 places in the OT, 23 in the NT. I.e. here's your chance to substantiate the assertion:
'Throughout' means OT & NT, right? I seek not information, context etc., just the reasonably literal OT reference to hell being in another dimension. As for respect, I read text, not respect it. In any tome. Like "addresss," as an example. |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #264 Oct 27 2009, 09:16 PM | Huxley |
No Perry. It's code for saying exactly the same thing he's always claimed. He just cannot or will not engage; so now he is employing a faux concern that his responses might be a waste of your time. Its the same old same old. Not a clue; deluded to the point of arguing for arguing sake. No evidence but tries to prevaricate by lecturing the rest of us on the nature of evidence. We dont need such advisement; we just want the evidence . His faith (whatever it might actually be) is based entirely upon emotion, nothing empirical. But he continues, like all good christians, to change the rules. If he were stung in the ass by a Bee, he would demand a sting to be able to say it was a Bee. Without that, he might as well claim that anything stung him. We just want to see the Bee sting; not some nebulous anecdote that he was certain it was a Bee. But when you cant provide the Bee sting or evidence of the actual sting, he is reduced to insisting and lecturing us on what is a true Bee sting. Its a pathetic attempt to justify the absurd reality he lives in and justify his world view. We are back to round one. This has gone on for months. You have all asked him to explain what he means, providing something that might persuade us that there may be some substance to it. We went from direct denial, to the stance that we just don't understand, right through the lectures about what constitutes proof, onwards through we wouldn't understand proof if it stung us on the ass, to finally being solicitous that providing any such evidence would be a waste of your time. Cookman, if you had any intellectual honesty (if you had any intellect) you would fold and leave the table to those who have actual cards to play. Edited by Perry, Oct 28 2009, 01:19 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #265 Oct 28 2009, 01:19 AM | Perry |
|
Is a revival possible? Maybe it's time for a re-run of this?
|
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #266 Mar 12 2010, 07:43 AM | Noel Cookman |
|
Re: the letter to Dr. Laura. The answers are very simple. 1. Is the inquirer a Jew? If so, they are under these laws unless these laws have been fulfilled (as in never having to be fulfilled again). 2. "The Law" has been fully and totally "fulfilled" by Christ Jesus - never again in need of being fufilled. This is why that, by faith in Him, one is no longer "under the law" but they are "under grace." |
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Religion discussion/biblical criticism/philosophy · Next Topic » |
4:47 PM Jul 31
