What kind of proof are you looking for? What seems farfetched about it?
You should very well know what the concept of proof is, specially as moderator, don’t try dodge the subject.
To my knowledge you are grasping things out of thin air!
I needed to know what level of proof you needed before I answered. But your “thin air” comment seems to clarify your POV well enough. Like I said above, I am basing my conclusions on the “Christian Story”. In that case it is the New Testament story though the lense of the orthodox Christian creeds. Now, you may think the Church got it out of thin air. But I didn’t. I stole it from THEM. It’s a proposition, if Jesus is God… and Jesus did the things said of him in the NT, then my conclusions follow.
OM*G!!! You have no idea of what proof is, that is a synonym for evidense, a claim is no evidense in itself, you need to link to some factual article AND quote the specific lines.
The premises are based on the Bible as interpreted via the orthodox creeds and my conclusions follow from that. It’s a proposition: if Jesus is God… and Jesus did the things said of him in the NT, then my conclusions follow. I can be more specific about Bible verses and the creeds, but I was talking to people who already know about this stuff before you came trolling in. It’s pretty common knowledge, you know, kind of Christianity 101. What isn’t so common are the conclusions I draw from it.
Anyone reasonable intelligent would know that ANYONE can claim anything, but in law, it’s not admissible as evidense just to let people and specially crazy people pour out prolific braih diariah, that way we could accuse eachother for totally random things and it would be chaos if random accusations would be admissible.
THEREFORE one must forward proof supporting the claim!
What you are saying is null and void!
My conclusions follow logically from the premises which derive from Christian texts. That’s all I’m claiming.
That is quite obvious, but unfortunaly invalid.
Back up your claim with proof, not idle chat.
Drusus,
You’re response to my “thorn in the flesh” post was, for me at least, irrational. I also suspect you of trolling since you would demand some rational style proof for archetypes as zeitgeists! The proof is the experience. The reasons given herein for my beliefs are attempts to describe ontological realizations. I’ve given some scientific evidence to prove that there is a gene, with allels, for belief and a moral compass in infants. These point to the survival value of the Golden Rule. Around 500 BCE this rule was stated in various religions of both East and West.
If you want mathematical certainty for any of these claims, you are limiting yourself to prefrontal cortexial analyses.
Personally I don’t doubt you. But I sure would like to know what Christian text is your source for the claim that Universal Salvation saves even God. … or even … if the source is from academics of Universal Salvation … give me something bro … I know you read it somewhere … the question is : where.
If the experience is hallusinations, how can hallusinations be proof?
Stop being silly, I’m not trolling, try to comprehend to see what i’m talking about, instead of jumping to silly conclusions.
We both know that children doesn’t have any inner moral compass, children can bully, childre can steal and lie just aswell as anyone else, and they’r easy to manipulate why you can see child soldiers who are vicous and brutal devoid of any moral, also they are easily swayed to be suicide bombers, you have no idea what you are talking about, specially when you say you can back it up with mathematical proof, just showing you are totally in the woods.
Never have anyone in court talking about proving everyday life things with math, that is not admissible.
The Christian texts have never been nor are now subject to the same premises or scrutiny of any other historical text. Logically you have to accept that they are as invalid as any story, as subject to error, fabrication and bias as any story. It doesn’t so much matter whether you are logical, but more that you are able to analyse these texts as we do non religious texts and call foul when they match no reputable history at all.
What’s invalid about it?
As the creator of everything, God is arguably responsible for the evil in the world. The Bible states that Jesus died on the cross and that according to the Nicene Creed Jesus is God. Accepting those statements as fact, it follows that God suffered and died. According to the Christian Bible, as interpreted by the Church, God in the person of Jesus, paid the ultimate price for the existence of evil.
You can do that if you want, but my proposition accepts the Bible as interpreted by the Church a fact.
I’d say more a factoid than fact.
And therein lies your problem and of course any creed, you believe that your histories are more valid than other histories based solely on faith. I don’t think you are bad for being a believer, I just think being one often means you forgo more of your critical sense than you do about just about everything else in your life, any other religion any other history. If it works for you though, good luck. I don’t want to come between a man or woman and his or her beliefs. However I am going to die in battle and be carried off by the Vawlkyrie to Vawlhalla.
Please join me in my quest for demoting felix dakat from moderation, he is blatantly unfit for such duty!
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=180902
Yeah I’ve seen it, I know what you mean but someone posting stuff you disagree with is not the same as someone being a good moderator, that ability is like being a Jedi, don’t turn to the dark side and make sure you bring balance to the Universe, as long as you are consistent in your moderation, you can hold any opinion you like, as do we all on this forum. Although me and some other people are in fact idiots, and we aint moderating so it’s cool.
It’s not the disagreeing part, disagreeing is most welcome to me as that would suggest there’s a chance to learn from others and find faults in my views.
It’s the puerile dodgeing the subject and trying to avoid logic and reason, it’s a sickly behaviour displayed, when critisizing Faust and Only_Humean, least they would have sufficient cognitive abilities to understand rudementary logic and reasoning, but that does felix dakat not have. Try to read the conversation between him and me, again.