Openly Gay Conservative has a message for America

#228
#228
Obsessed said:
He's googling "facts" right now about things he doesn't care about.

Give him his space... Geezzzz
Click to expand...

201504_1221_aachg_sm.jpg
 
#229
#229
Carl Pickens said:
This is why belief in God is based on one's faith.
You do realize that the scientists haven't shown proof either..... Right? They've expressed theories
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "haven't shown proof", and what context do you mean?

Also a theory in scientific terms means something very different than everyday use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#231
#231
SuperDave said:
Christians are some of the most hateful.. intolerant.. hypocritical people on the planet..

If you aren't a christian you are pretty much scum.
Click to expand...

WTF world are you living in Dave? Got a bad word to say about a Muslim? You know, the shining beacons of love and tolerance.

butt_plug_womens_tank_top.jpg


Have a nice Dave.
 
#236
#236
SuperDave said:
Christians are some of the most hateful.. intolerant.. hypocritical people on the planet..

If you aren't a christian you are pretty much scum.
Click to expand...

I don't know one Christian who believes that. Maybe you have only met religious people? Perhaps people who aren't trusting in Christ only for forgiveness, salvation and eternal life but are trusting in their own works? Like I said earlier I don't think, and I'm not saying this in any kind of sarcasm, that you aren't familiar with God's grace.
 
#237
#237
SuperDave said:
Except... the other guy actually did it.
So.. you read that 2nd paragraph and agreed with it??
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You pretty much have implied that believers in the bible aren't intellectual etc but what that guy said in his second paragraph offends you? What does it matter what I think about what he said? I'm not a spokesmen for anyone on here. You have spoken your mind why can't ANYONE else? If the guy believes that way that is his right.

The point I was trying to make was clear, concise and to the point. I think most would understand what I meant.
 
#238
#238
SuperDave said:
go up 2 posts from yours.. I proved god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that? That's just intellectually dishonest and absolutely not true. So much, volumes, could be said about this subject but I am bowing out of this conversation. This isn't the place for a debate.

My apologies to everyone for joining. The subject particularly of the reliability of the new testament is something dear to me. Something that I know like the back of my hand and it was hard to refrain. Anyways Cheers :)
 
#239
#239
MercyPercy said:
Roughly 33% of american scientists say they believe in god, yet 97%(more if we're going to only count relevant scientific fields) accept evolution(as a macro event, before we start down that silliness).

What exactly are you implying?
Click to expand...

Are you being obtuse? Why? What I said is pretty clear. I know of scientists not feeling comfortable with speaking to the public about their faith.
 
#240
#240
SuperDave said:
Christians are some of the most hateful.. intolerant.. hypocritical people on the planet..

If you aren't a christian you are pretty much scum.
Click to expand...

Obviously you've been around the wrong kind of professed Christians. There are some oddballs who claim to be Christian, but most are opposite of what you believe.
 
#242
#242
volger said:
WTF world are you living in Dave? Got a bad word to say about a Muslim? You know, the shining beacons of love and tolerance.

butt_plug_womens_tank_top.jpg


Have a nice Dave.
Click to expand...

I'm sure islam is probably just as hateful and intolerant but my experience and knowledge is dealing with christianity and christians.
 
#243
#243
Orange_Crush said:
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. So, if a person makes the claim that God does not exist, then the burden of proof (that God does not exist) rests just as surely upon that person.

Similarly, if a person makes the claim that Christian stories are plagiarized from paganism, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim. (Hint: It's been claimed in this forum several times, and handled accordingly.)

If a person claims that the Bible is untrustworthy, then the burden of proof for that claim lies with the person making that claim.

If you feel that it's asinine to ask people to prove negatives (it isn't always), then you should also realize how asinine it is to make unprovable negative claims. But you don't see how asinine you are, because you are ignorant.
Click to expand...

Negative. The claim that God doesn't exist isn't postulated until somebody makes the claim that he does. You are shifting the burden to the negative. With every other area of discourse the negative is the default. Claims of the divine should be no different. The question of the existence of anything is never questioned until somebody claims it does.

For instance, the default position of ghosts is they don't exist. The default position is that astrology doesn't work. The default position is that the Qu'ran is not trustworthy. You can't claim they do...then when somebody else claims they don't that the burden of proof is on those making the negative claim. The burden of proof is and always has been on those making the positive claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#244
#244
QuickSmurf said:
Do you really believe that? That's just intellectually dishonest and absolutely not true. So much, volumes, could be said about this subject but I am bowing out of this conversation. This isn't the place for a debate.

My apologies to everyone for joining. The subject particularly of the reliability of the new testament is something dear to me. Something that I know like the back of my hand and it was hard to refrain. Anyways Cheers :)
Click to expand...

here you go:

"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

"the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

“How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.”
(Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint, Pietro Cardinal Bembo : De Vita Leonis Decimi, , op. cit., Paolo Cardinal Giovio)
 
#245
#245
joevol33 said:
Obviously you've been around the wrong kind of professed Christians. There are some oddballs who claim to be Christian, but most are opposite of what you believe.
Click to expand...

Just as the "oddballs" don't represent all of Christianity, neither to the radicals represent all of Islam. To claim other wise is to say one bad Christian makes all Christians bad. I certainly don't believe that to be the case, which is why I cannot understand Muslim hatred. Hate the men committing the acts. Hate the acts themselves. But don't shift the blame they deserve to an entire people simply because these evil men claim they do such horrendous things in the name of "Allah". Many hateful things have been done in the name of God as well. History is full of zealots. Blame the individuals, not the entire Muslim community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#246
#246
rjd970 said:
Negative. The claim that God doesn't exist isn't postulated until somebody makes the claim that he does. You are shifting the burden to the negative. With every other area of discourse the negative is the default. Claims of the divine should be no different. The question of the existence of anything is never questioned until somebody claims it does.

For instance, the default position of ghosts is they don't exist. The default position is that astrology doesn't work. The default position is that the Qu'ran is not trustworthy. You can't claim they do...then when somebody else claims they don't that the burden of proof is on those making the negative claim. The burden of proof is and always has been on those making the positive claim.
Click to expand...

They don't understand this.. so I used their methods to prove god doesn't exist but apparently I can't do that.. lol

god doesn't exist is true because there is no proof that god not existing is false
 
#248
#248
Weezer said:
If I throw him out the window and he falls to his death, didn't I just prove he couldn't fly? Or are you going to argue he chose not to fly?
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point but..
Could be his will not to fly.. Ricky works in mysterious ways.
 
#249
#249
QuickSmurf said:
I've been in a dessert somewhere in a foreign country and we did share God's love with them by helping them build houses etc etc etc. Love is an action and God's love is absolutely free. That is how He really is. People who are poor going into a foreign country living in terrible conditions showing the love of God for free. That is Christianity. We didn't go to earn something or get something. We went to give something for free. You do not know as much as you think. You are confusing religion with a real relationship with Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

First, let me get the smart ass comment out of the way. What kind of dessert was it? Was it jello wrestling?

Okay, now that I've had my chuckle, did you go there to build houses or did you go there to minister? Were these people already of the Christian faith? If you went there to build them a house in hopes of converting them to Christianity, that's not charity. They may not be paying money, but they have to listen to you tell them how their faith is wrong and your faith is right. There's an exchange being made. Not charity. If a Muslim showed up at your door telling you Jesus was not the answer and he was there to save your soul by telling you about the teachings of Muhammad, how appreciative would you be? What if he offered to mow your lawn for free if you listened to what he had to say? It wouldn't be charity. It's the same principle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#250
#250
SuperDave said:
I think you missed the point but..
Could be his will not to fly.. Ricky works in mysterious ways.
Click to expand...

So option #2. Thank you, you've just shown me your only goal is to argue, not reason.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top