|
.
Aug 26, 2019 12:59:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 12:59:56 GMT
Me claiming to have an understanding of the Bible is not the same thing as me saying I'm the only one. I have no idea why you have special in quotes. Finally you have never had the ability to challenge a view of mine. I don't think you've even tried. You have never been able to challenge anyone due to your non Cool beliefs in the bible and exhaust yourself of ways to find a way out of the hole you always dig for yourself. You then spin confused word salads and statements, just like the bible, and they have no basis and grounding in reality. i don’t challenge anyone unless it’s in regards to them stupidly telling me my views and beliefs with no evidence they know anything about it. Theophobiacs do that all the time and it can be interesting to see them explain in great detail something they are 100% wrong about. It usually ends in changing the subject to something they think they can win...but still don’t. Overall challenging others is a pointless endeavor since theophobiacs aren’t open minded enough to get past their own irrational opinions about stuff.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 13:12:39 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 13:12:39 GMT
i don’t challenge anyone unless it’s in regards to them stupidly telling me my views and beliefs with no evidence they know anything about it. But we do, since on this very thread we know that you are "ok with being called a fundy ". Religious fundamentalism refers to the belief of an individual or a group of individuals in the absolute authority of a sacred religious text or teachings of a particular religious leader, prophet,and/ or God and is almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible. It can also carry the connotation of religious extremism, and reflects the growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 14:07:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 14:07:53 GMT
i don’t challenge anyone unless it’s in regards to them stupidly telling me my views and beliefs with no evidence they know anything about it. But we do, since on this very thread we know that you are "ok with being called a fundy ". Religious fundamentalism refers to the belief of an individual or a group of individuals in the absolute authority of a sacred religious text or teachings of a particular religious leader, prophet,and/ or God and is almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible. It can also carry the connotation of religious extremism, and reflects the growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism. I am ok with being called a fundy since I wouldn’t be able to change a view on what fundy means. Words with no definition are just words. If you are ascribing a definition to fundy then you calling me so does not mean I all of a sudden believe the things you associate with it or that I even consider myself a fundy since I don’t. However goz’s reason for thinking I am a fundy are incorrect and that is clearly what I said so it’s odd someone as smart as you would kiss that. I am not ok with you or your ilk telling me what my beliefs are beyond what I’ve given you and so I will usually pushback on such ridiculous assumptions.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 15:11:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 15:11:29 GMT
i don’t challenge anyone unless it’s in regards to them stupidly telling me my views and beliefs with no evidence they know anything about it. Theophobiacs do that all the time and it can be interesting to see them explain in great detail something they are 100% wrong about. It usually ends in changing the subject to something they think they can win...but still don’t. Overall challenging others is a pointless endeavor since theophobiacs aren’t open minded enough to get past their own irrational opinions about stuff. You are constantly making statements about your views and beliefs and are now in total utter denial, but that is to be expected. Are you saying that your posts aren't evidence of who you represent and what your beliefs are..... Why else do you think that posters question and "challenge" your bulls<>t? statement about views is something everyone does. If a question is asked then I answer it. It’s your problem if that answer irks you enough to respond. That isn’t a challenge of your views but a statement of mine until your views try to define me or insist how right your often boneheaded views are.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 15:34:54 GMT
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 15:34:54 GMT
Good to see that you are addressing the issues and not making this personal.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 15:38:32 GMT
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 15:38:32 GMT
God is dog spelled backwards, and dog is man's best friend. Asking you because yours is the first reply … do you by any chance remember what the original post or its heading were ? As it stands with "." as a title and no original post, it's really a puzzle ! It really doesn't matter, in the long run, but am curious !
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 16:06:39 GMT
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 16:06:39 GMT
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 16:20:55 GMT
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 16:20:55 GMT
OP was asking believers to prove the existence of God. Looks like he deleted it, but I believe the question was what is the best argument for existence of God to be answered by believers. so basically the first reply ( if the dog/god one was #!) was off topic and going astray as far as he was concerned … he does tend to delete the topic when that happens .
I have done that a couple of times, One was a Happy New Years note on the CFB and the first reply was a political rant from our resident loony... so I deleted it and started over ! Problem is that the Title stays … here the OP deleted even that !
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 16:33:37 GMT
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 16:33:37 GMT
paulslaugh Lots of folks don't actually interact … they post an OP and that's it. BUT they don't usually delete the OP. Used to be a regular on IMDb who did that but she didn't make the move ..thankfully ! Dunno who "Edgar" is
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 16:46:01 GMT
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 17:15:57 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 17:15:57 GMT
I am ok with being called a fundy since I wouldn’t be able to change a view on what fundy means. Words with no definition are just words. Indeed; which is why in my last reply I very helpfully provided a definition, to which I see you offer no objection. Make your mind up; either you are OK with being called one or you are not. If such a label does not describe you then it would be reasonable to assume that you would not in fact be "ok with it", just as when you try that 'theophobic' thing with me. That you are happy with it because the definition or view cannot be changed is neither here nor there. As previously noted, it's either OK or not. As I have given a perfectly well understood definition of same which you assert is a view which cannot be changed while offering no objection to it, I think the reasonable reader would form a quick impression of the type of beliefs you are very likely to hold and are happy to be ascribed. Of course you may wish to be inconsistent; that is your privilege but the disingenuousness involved is not self-recommending.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 18:50:49 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 18:50:49 GMT
As a life long fundamentalist Christian I've never felt any shame associated with the label. Labeling fundamentalists as extremists is laughable to me so I don't even give it a second thought. While not every fundamentalist is an extremist, most or all religious extremists are fundamentalists. What could be more extreme doctrinally than asserting that a holy book is inerrant and literally true when the Bible at least is manifestly and self-admittedly the work of humans using a range of literary techniques for different audiences?
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 19:06:53 GMT
Post by clusium on Aug 26, 2019 19:06:53 GMT
So, what if it came from other living things. It still does not negate the fact that it protects living things from UV. If everything was pure accident, there would be no connects in these things. *sigh* You have it the wrong way around. Living things were able to evolve because it was there. Because God Willed it.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 19:11:53 GMT
Post by clusium on Aug 26, 2019 19:11:53 GMT
Ever heard of the 0Zone Layer, Toasted Cheese ? That layer of gas in the Earth's hemisphere that is being destroyed by pollution? Before pollution began destroying that layer, it was for protecting all living things on Earth from the cancerous effects of the sun. Putting the destruction of that layer aside, & whatever it is made up of, the fact that it is there at all, points to a Supreme Creator. It means Someone Wanted to put life on Earth. All animal life, including human beings, breathe in oxygen, & breathe out carbon dioxide. All plant life breathe in carbon dioxide & breathe out oxygen. Again, this points to a Supreme Creator. If life was all a complete & random accident, there would be no connecting relationship, preserving the life force of the living things here on Earth. Ever heard of dunning kruger clusium. I wouldn't embarrass yourself anymore than you already have, because the nature of humankind and what THEY have done to the ozone layer and the nature of the universe is going to trump all over what you only think you believe to be true, yet really know jack squat. The fact that human beings have destroyed much of the 0zone layer does not negate upon it's purpose - to protect living things from the harmful effects of the sun. The Amazon Rainforest is called the "Lungs of the World," because we get much of our oxygen from there, & yet humans have destroyed much of it, & the current forest fire that is running through it. Doesn't negate that produces much of our oxygen.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 19:13:04 GMT
Post by clusium on Aug 26, 2019 19:13:04 GMT
That still does not negate the fact that the 0Zone layer was meant for protecting living organisms from the cancerous effects of the sun. Someone Wanted to Make life on Earth. What about life elsewhere? You suffer from human arrogance, in thinking you are the be all end all of lifeforms. Where in my post did I deny that Our Heavenly Father Created life elsewhere in the universe?
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 19:20:45 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 19:20:45 GMT
What about life elsewhere? You suffer from human arrogance, in thinking you are the be all end all of lifeforms. Where in my post did I deny that Our Heavenly Father Created life elsewhere in the universe? Psalm 8 in its rhetorical questioning, strongly implies that man is supposedly unique: When I see the heavens, the works of your hands, the moon and the stars which you arranged, what is man that you should keep him in mind, mortal man that you care for him?
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 19:24:51 GMT
Post by clusium on Aug 26, 2019 19:24:51 GMT
Where in my post did I deny that Our Heavenly Father Created life elsewhere in the universe? Psalm 8 in its rhetorical questioning, strongly implies that man is supposedly unique: When I see the heavens, the works of your hands, the moon and the stars which you arranged, what is man that you should keep him in mind, mortal man that you care for him? I don't see the implication there. All I see is the psalmist praising God for Creating & Care for humans.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 19:40:02 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 19:40:02 GMT
Psalm 8 in its rhetorical questioning, strongly implies that man is supposedly unique: When I see the heavens, the works of your hands, the moon and the stars which you arranged, what is man that you should keep him in mind, mortal man that you care for him? I don't see the implication there. All I see is the psalmist praising God for Creating & Care for humans. "What is man..." the reader of course would expected to know and believe what man is, God's special creation. Scripture is not aimed at the unconverted. If you really are that tone deaf, then contrast and compare to "What a piece of work is man!" a phrase within a monologue by Hamlet.. Reflecting, at first admiringly, and then despairingly, on the human condition, the words and ensuing monologue echo the Prince's wider, melancholic questioning of life where the reader is not expected to know the answer. Hamlet's "how like a god", from the same speech is not expected to be taken in the same implicit way as the breathless appreciatory words of Psalm 8.
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 21:35:50 GMT
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 26, 2019 21:35:50 GMT
Good to see that you are addressing the issues and not making this personal. Is there an issue somewhere with you and me? What is with your passive aggressive comment? I don't recall mentioning anything to you here on this thread. Yeah . You are again giving mslovak a hard time and being in general rude. It is possible to argue a point without using "loony" and other slurs. As far as "mentioning anything to you here in this thread" ..This open board is open to commentary to and by anyone.. Want a private conversation ? That's what Private messages are for. As far as the "passive aggressive" psychology 101 remark .. get a new record .. you've played this one at me before. end of story .
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 21:40:58 GMT
Post by goz on Aug 26, 2019 21:40:58 GMT
goz But you got to admit that's (the 'Our Lady of Guadalupe' image from the year 1531 etc) AT LEAST plausible in terms of proof even though you act like it's just some random occurrence that's not worth anything. just the fact it survived for so long says a lot on that alone not to mention other stuff mentioned in the video. it defies nature as it can't be created by a person, that's got to count for something but my St. Thomas Aquinas comment pretty much sums you up along with many others as no matter what they see, they will continue to deny it. Toasted Cheese I think it's more of a reflection of you wanting to reject God than it not being good enough as it will never be good enough to some people as God could come down from Heaven and people would still write it off as some mass hallucination etc. to claim that Our Lady of Guadalupe is nothing is simply not true as just the fact it's survived so long when normally that stuff deteriorates in maybe 30 years or so tops (the image is nearly 500 years old, so it's well beyond 30 years or so) has to count for something and then you got other things mentioned in the video which gives further evidence to it's supernatural origin. rejecting God is insanity because the alternative is not something you will like to put it mildly (i.e. hell). care to say why it's 'borderline insanity'? ; I doubt you can. because I can see maybe writing off some of what's said in the video, but to say all of it is nothing is a stretch as it's more likely true than not given people can't recreate it even today and that was done nearly 500 years ago. but the world just don't care about the truth as I am sure that's why many don't even pay attention to stuff like that even though it's surely at least a plausible level of evidence for God's existence instead of next to nothing like you attempt to claim. but the world hates God (which gets even more true the further left someone goes since disorder reigns supreme and they begin to hate the truth after a certain point) which pretty much plays inline with that quote I posted here and there, which is... No. It is neither a miracle nor proof of God.
|
|