Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Religion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Yes. We do disagree on that point and many others. At least it seems that we are doing so somewhat politely, which is the right way to do it, IMO.
    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
      So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
      We'll need to see a state issued photo ID along with a recent copy of a utility bill and a recent credit card bill. All with valid current addresses.
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
        You know what's weird Clete? ... you don't even know Aristotle.
        Is that a truth or a belief?

        You stated it as a fact, so I assume you believe it to be a truth.

        So how do you go about determining the truth of your belief?
        Last edited by ok doser; August 20th, 2019, 10:20 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
          That's another difference between the way you think and the way I think: See, in my book, all knowing IS thinking. You don't think? Then you don't know. If I can say, "I know that T is true", I can just as easily say, "I, therefore, think that T is true", because my knowledge that T is true is nothing other than my thinking that T is true while T is true.

          That's why I, for one, never do the silly, anti-intellectual "I don't think! I know!"-shtick. But, perhaps such silliness is quite acceptable for "Unreflective John Doe-ism"....er, um, I mean, "Rejective Knowism".
          If I were to be insulting to others, like you and the other "Christians" around here do....I wonder if I will start getting thanked for my posts. Then, I think about it....and I realize that it is only the Christians who will be thanked for insulting others.....

          Then, I laugh and think.....what a fail, there's just too much irony there.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
            Is that a truth or a belief?

            You stated it as a fact, so I assume you believe it to be a truth.

            So how do you go about determining the truth of your belief?
            TRUTH is found only in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is revelation from God and thus is the sole authority and source of TRUTH.

            Scripture studied through comparing Scripture with Scripture is the methodology to finding TRUTH.

            Faith in the Word of God alone justifies a soul.

            Jesus Christ personified the Word of God.

            John 14:6
            "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

            " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
            Gordon H. Clark

            "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
            Charles Spurgeon

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
              This surely is referring to the hideous doctrine of original sin, which is not biblical and it is not true, not in the way that most Christian's understand it anyway.

              God absolutely does not, would not, will not ever hold anyone responsible for someone else's sin - period.

              Ezekiel 18 is an entire chapter of the bible on this exact issue where God commands Israel to stop saying such things...

              Read it - please! Of all the possible objections to Christianity, this one at least you can put down as something someone lied to you about. It just simply is not true.

              Clete
              Is the book of Romans true? The book of Romans says the exact opposite of what you just said. You said you don't like liars....but you said God wouldn't hold someone accountable for another persons sin. But the bible says he did. So who is lying.....you or the bible?


              "Therefore, as through [h]one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
                Please don't talk to me, about me, or participate in this thread. I thank you for leaving and not talking.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nang View Post
                  TRUTH is found only in Holy Scripture.
                  Wrong. Truth is all around you. You smash your face into a brick wall, it will hurt. That is truth and it is not found in the bible. That one's on me....free of charge.

                  You're welcome.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
                    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                    Please don't talk to me, about me, or participate in this thread. I thank you for leaving and not talking.

                    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                      Wrong. Truth is all around you. You smash your face into a brick wall, it will hurt. That is truth ....

                      And yet it can be proven false, and therefore nothing more than a falsifiable belief that may or may not be true, conditionally

                      What criteria do you use to determine whether something is a falsifiable belief or is an absolute truth?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        Saying things about truth isn't defining it.
                        You really don't spend even so much as a second's worth of time reflecting upon what you're writing, do you? I hope, for your sake, that you invested almost no time and/or mental effort into coming up with what you wrote, here. I mean, what an incredibly abysmal, ridiculous thing to say:

                        "Saying things about X isn't defining X."
                        Amazing!

                        So, according to you--whatever (if anything) you imagine it is to define something--to define X is to NOT say anything about X.

                        Remember what you said to me:

                        Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        How do you define truth?

                        And now, you've just told me that, when you said to me, "How do you define truth?", you were actually requesting me to NOT say anything about truth!

                        All right, Professor: Since you wanted me to NOT say anything about truth, then about what were you requesting me to say something when you said to me, "How do you define truth?"

                        Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        At the very least you could have used the dictionary and offered a definition.
                        Open whatever source you are referring to, here, as "the dictionary", and find an entry headed by the word, 'truth'. Let me know, Professor Guyver: Is something said about truth, therein? Yes or No?

                        If you wish to say that whatever you call "the dictionary" defines truth, then you're just going to have a swell time trying to tell me exactly how it does so WITHOUT SAYING THINGS ABOUT TRUTH.

                        Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        How is it logical to make statements about something that you can't define?
                        Notice: I'm not the one idiotically saying that I, 7djengo7, "can't define" truth. On the contrary, I can define, do define, and, in my previous post, have defined, truth. Comprehensively? Of course not! Only an abject idiot could imagine that a finite mind could comprehensively define truth...or comprehensively define anything else, for that matter.

                        You, Professor Guyver, are the one idiotically saying--that is to say, making a statement--that I, 7djengo7, "can't define" something about which I "make statements". Would you say it is logical for you, Professor Guyver, to make statements about something which you say that I, 7djengo7, "can't define"?

                        And, now, by all means, Professor Guyver, please, oh please, show us exactly how you would go about defining truth WITHOUT SAYING THINGS ABOUT TRUTH. Have fun! (Hehehehe, I wouldn't even be surprised if you require access to a 3D printer in order to try to show us how you imagine you define truth.)
                        All my ancestors are human.
                        PS: All your ancestors are human.
                        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                          You really don't spend even so much as a second's worth of time reflecting upon what you're writing, do you? I hope, for your sake, that you invested almost no time and/or mental effort into coming up with what you wrote, here. I mean, what an incredibly abysmal, ridiculous thing to say:

                          "Saying things about X isn't defining X."
                          Amazing!

                          So, according to you--whatever (if anything) you imagine it is to define something--to define X is to NOT say anything about X.

                          Remember what you said to me:


                          And now, you've just told me that, when you said to me, "How do you define truth?", you were actually requesting me to NOT say anything about truth!

                          All right, Professor: Since you wanted me to NOT say anything about truth, then about what were you requesting me to say something when you said to me, "How do you define truth?"



                          Open whatever source you are referring to, here, as "the dictionary", and find an entry headed by the word, 'truth'. Let me know, Professor Guyver: Is something said about truth, therein? Yes or No?

                          If you wish to say that whatever you call "the dictionary" defines truth, then you're just going to have a swell time trying to tell me exactly how it does so WITHOUT SAYING THINGS ABOUT TRUTH.



                          Notice: I'm not the one idiotically saying that I, 7djengo7, "can't define" truth. On the contrary, I can define, do define, and, in my previous post, have defined, truth. Comprehensively? Of course not! Only an abject idiot could imagine that a finite mind could comprehensively define truth...or comprehensively define anything else, for that matter.

                          You, Professor Guyver, are the one idiotically saying--that is to say, making a statement--that I, 7djengo7, "can't define" something about which I "make statements". Would you say it is logical for you, Professor Guyver, to make statements about something which you say that I, 7djengo7, "can't define"?

                          And, now, by all means, Professor Guyver, please, oh please, show us exactly how you would go about defining truth WITHOUT SAYING THINGS ABOUT TRUTH. Have fun! (Hehehehe, I wouldn't even be surprised if you require access to a 3D printer in order to try to show us how you imagine you define truth.)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                            Thanks, Brother!

                            As you can see, what Guyver has done (by saying that he can't define something by saying things about it) is that he has made it perfectly clear that, throughout all his posts here, on TOL--in which he has said anything, whatsoever, about anything, whatsoever--he considers himself to have never once defined anything, whatsoever.
                            All my ancestors are human.
                            PS: All your ancestors are human.
                            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                            Comment


                            • That must be why he finds it so difficult to answer a straightforward question

                              Comment


                              • Humpty Guyver




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X