Well the Southern Baptists declared the bible a true factual word of God.

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Read Post #62 in the Thought Experiment thread. My beliefs are made clear. Ask if you need further clarification.

A simple, I'm not a YEC would have sufficed.

I don't feel obligated to jump when I'm told.

Vainglory

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

It's proof for me. It's proof for you. But show it to an atheist. It will not be proof to them.

I didn't realize you were speaking for others when you made that post.

 

[Colin norris]

Stuartbirdan2
Get rid of this bible crap. It means nothing. Who cares about the queen of sheba.
The whole this is about these idiots think God created everything and it's simply not true.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

The historical accuracy of the stories told in the Hebrew Bible is a point of dispute among scholars. Some scholars believe that there was no exodus from Egypt and that the Israelites lived in Canaan alongside various "Canaanite" groups during the second millennium B.C. Scholars who study ancient languages sometimes describe Hebrew, a language used by the Israelis, as a "Canaanite" language noting that it is similar in some respects to Phoenician.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that some of the Israelites could have left Egypt at some point during the second millennium B.C. Excavations and ancient texts show that various foreign groups lived in Egypt at different points in the civilization's history, says James Hoffmeier, an archaeologist and professor at Trinity International University, in a series of lectures and papers.

Hoffmeier also points out that the ancient city of Ramesses, mentioned in the exodus stories told in the Hebrew Bible, does exist and archaeologists have determined that it flourished for several centuries during the second millennium B.C., becoming abandoned about 3,100 years ago.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2
Get rid of this bible crap. It means nothing. Who cares about the queen of sheba.
The whole this is about these idiots think God created everything and it's simply not true.

Link?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

The historical accuracy of the stories told in the Hebrew Bible is a point of dispute among scholars. Some scholars believe that there was no exodus from Egypt and that the Israelites lived in Canaan alongside various "Canaanite" groups during the second millennium B.C. Scholars who study ancient languages sometimes describe Hebrew, a language used by the Israelis, as a "Canaanite" language noting that it is similar in some respects to Phoenician.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that some of the Israelites could have left Egypt at some point during the second millennium B.C. Excavations and ancient texts show that various foreign groups lived in Egypt at different points in the civilization's history, says James Hoffmeier, an archaeologist and professor at Trinity International University, in a series of lectures and papers.

Hoffmeier also points out that the ancient city of Ramesses, mentioned in the exodus stories told in the Hebrew Bible, does exist and archaeologists have determined that it flourished for several centuries during the second millennium B.C., becoming abandoned about 3,100 years ago.

Who Were the Canaanites?

The Canaanites were people who lived in the Middle East more than 3,000 years ago.

www.livescience.com

The historical accuracy of the stories told in the Hebrew Bible is a point of dispute among scholars. Some scholars believe that there was no exodus from Egypt and that the Israelites lived in Canaan alongside various "Canaanite" groups during the second millennium B.C. Scholars who study ancient languages sometimes describe Hebrew, a language used by the Israelis, as a "Canaanite" language noting that it is similar in some respects to Phoenician.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that some of the Israelites could have left Egypt at some point during the second millennium B.C. Excavations and ancient texts show that various foreign groups lived in Egypt at different points in the civilization's history, says James Hoffmeier, an archaeologist and professor at Trinity International University, in a series of lectures and papers.

Hoffmeier also points out that the ancient city of Ramesses, mentioned in the exodus stories told in the Hebrew Bible, does exist and archaeologists have determined that it flourished for several centuries during the second millennium B.C., becoming abandoned about 3,100 years ago.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

Renowned archeologist William Dever says that attempts to "prove the Bible" are misguided.

www.pbs.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

Does archeology in Jerusalem itself reveal anything about the Kingdom of David and Solomon?
We haven't had much of an opportunity to excavate in Jerusalem. It's a living city, not an archeological site. But we have a growing collection of evidence—monumental buildings that most of us would date to the 10th century, including the new so-called Palace of David. Having seen it with the excavator, it is certainly monumental. Whether it's a palace or an administrative center or a combination of both or a kind of citadel remains to be seen

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.
In every age of disbelief, one is inclined to think that God is dead. And surely those who survived the fall of Jerusalem must have thought so. After all, how could God allow his Temple, his house—the visible sign of his presence amongst his people—to be destroyed? What did we do wrong? It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our downfall. There is, after all, only one God. And this radical belief in a single God who governs history becomes the heart of Judaism
It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.
In every age of disbelief, one is inclined to think that God is dead. And surely those who survived the fall of Jerusalem must have thought so. After all, how could God allow his Temple, his house—the visible sign of his presence amongst his people—to be destroyed? What did we do wrong? It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our downfall. There is, after all, only one God. And this radical belief in a single God who governs history becomes the heart of Judaism

 

[surada]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

Renowned archeologist William Dever says that attempts to "prove the Bible" are misguided.

www.pbs.org

Funny about the goddess Asherah. I like Devers work, but Israel Frankenstein is my favorite.

 

[surada]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

Does archeology in Jerusalem itself reveal anything about the Kingdom of David and Solomon?
We haven't had much of an opportunity to excavate in Jerusalem. It's a living city, not an archeological site. But we have a growing collection of evidence—monumental buildings that most of us would date to the 10th century, including the new so-called Palace of David. Having seen it with the excavator, it is certainly monumental. Whether it's a palace or an administrative center or a combination of both or a kind of citadel remains to be seen

Both were quite small and hardly grand.

 

[ding]

It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.

Why does it seem astonishing to you?

 

[surada]

Stuartbirdan2

Cut your silly rubbish.
Get some facts or remain quiet.
You've already been beaten with facts but won't concede because if religion. Well done. God bless the idiots also.

It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.
In every age of disbelief, one is inclined to think that God is dead. And surely those who survived the fall of Jerusalem must have thought so. After all, how could God allow his Temple, his house—the visible sign of his presence amongst his people—to be destroyed? What did we do wrong? It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our downfall. There is, after all, only one God. And this radical belief in a single God who governs history becomes the heart of Judaism
It seems astonishing that after this defeat the Israelites could stay faithful to their god.
In every age of disbelief, one is inclined to think that God is dead. And surely those who survived the fall of Jerusalem must have thought so. After all, how could God allow his Temple, his house—the visible sign of his presence amongst his people—to be destroyed? What did we do wrong? It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our downfall. There is, after all, only one God. And this radical belief in a single God who governs history becomes the heart of Judaism

The Jews were all fighting each other and the Romans at the time.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

 

[surada]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

What did you just say?

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

What did you just say?

That God exists and is the source of the material world.

 

[surada]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

“I think, therefore I am”: Descartes on the Foundations of Knowledge
26 NOVEMBER 2018~ 1000-WORD PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY
Author: Charles Miceli
Category: Historical Philosophy, Epistemology
Word Count: 994

If you are reading this, then you are probably looking at a screen or a piece of paper. Think to yourself: “I have some paper in my hand,” “I am in front of a computer” or whatever fits.

Is your belief here certain? Is there any way that you could believe this, yet your belief be false? Is there any possibility that you are mistaken about this belief? René Descartes (1596-1650) argues you could: this belief, and almost all other beliefs, are not certain

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

What did you just say?

That God exists and is the source of the material world.

Thanks.

I have had many remarkable coincidences in my life that showed up in times of terrible trouble just in the nick of time.

I think I am blessed... or receptive or both. Its not something I fully understand. This must be God.