Goodnight all...been nice cussing and discussing with you all today...have a good evening!
Wow! I am speechless. Your science knowledge is stunningly underwhelming. The earth is a closed system. You cannot add water. All of the water would have to come from existing sources. If the amount of water on earth is not capable of causing earth-wide floods than it could not happen, unless of course MIRACLE. It would take many times more water than is currently on the earth to produce that kind of flooding. Also if there were tsunami's there would have to be other areas with lower water levels.
Hi DLG,
You tell us, "I am new to this board but have been on many others. Maybe I am mistaken in thinking that when one makes an assertion it is HIS/HERS burden to prove that assertion. Not to just make an uncited debatable comment, declare its validity and then require others to disprove it.
"How do you know He hasn't? Can you personally prove that God has NOT healed an amputee? "
This is absurd. One cannot have reasonably educated worthwhile debate in this fashion. It is logic like this that has perpetuated the scientology farce. If one makes an wild-ass crazy statement to reinforce their point it is generally their responsibility to provide some sort of proof.
I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster, spit out meatballs that formed in to the planets, and that at the center of the earth is a chessy gooey mass. Now it is your responsibilty to dissprove it. Go."
So, what you are saying -- with all your atheistic rhetoric and misdirection -- is that you CANNOT disprove the statements I made about the Bible. Therefore, we must assume the statements are true; based upon your logic -- and the Bible.
Why didn't you just say so -- instead of giving all of us the Atheist Two Step?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You tell us, "I am new to this board but have been on many others. Maybe I am mistaken in thinking that when one makes an assertion it is HIS/HERS burden to prove that assertion. Not to just make an uncited debatable comment, declare its validity and then require others to disprove it.
"How do you know He hasn't? Can you personally prove that God has NOT healed an amputee? "
This is absurd. One cannot have reasonably educated worthwhile debate in this fashion. It is logic like this that has perpetuated the scientology farce. If one makes an wild-ass crazy statement to reinforce their point it is generally their responsibility to provide some sort of proof.
I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster, spit out meatballs that formed in to the planets, and that at the center of the earth is a chessy gooey mass. Now it is your responsibilty to dissprove it. Go."
So, what you are saying -- with all your atheistic rhetoric and misdirection -- is that you CANNOT disprove the statements I made about the Bible. Therefore, we must assume the statements are true; based upon your logic -- and the Bible.
Why didn't you just say so -- instead of giving all of us the Atheist Two Step?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Why didn't you just say so -- instead of giving all of us the Atheist Two Step?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
ARE YOU KIDDING? First you have done nothing but spout your unsourced drivel with no proofs at all. I then go and provide a very lengthy rebuttal to your assertion that "I believe the Bible. You CANNOT disprove the Bible. Oh, you can make claims about the Bible; it is a book of myths, etc. -- but, you CANNOT give us verifiable proof that this is true -- only claims. "
Do you know how this works? First one makes a comment with evidence to prove what they are saying is not crap. Then the other party pffers a rebuttal also with proof. This is like debating the TV.
First you claim Lazarus was dead. What disease did he have? What were his vital signs? There are hundreds of documented cases where someone who was declared dead was not actually dead and "miraculously" came back to life. Have you ever seen the faith healers apparently cure the same afflictions psychosomaticly makeing the afflicted feel as if they are truly healed. Do they have the same powers as Christ? I have listed dozens of examples that the bible does have many errors. Your turn.
Not only did I, "So, what you are saying -- with all your atheistic rhetoric and misdirection -- is that you CANNOT disprove the statements I made about the Bible." but I did with the bible itself.
All the while you have criticised my postings when you not posted one single fact.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Blah blah blah blah
Bill
A flying purple dragon flew into my window last night and ate pasta. We talked in dragon code for about an hour before he had to fly to cancun for girls gone wild tour he was working on.
Disprove this.
i always knew barney would make something of himself.
One single thing that religion can do that secularism cannot:
Cause intelligent adults to rant and rave, make accusations, call names, and lose their tempers all trying to one up each other.
I win.
Cause intelligent adults to rant and rave, make accusations, call names, and lose their tempers all trying to one up each other.
I win.
Hi DLG,
You say, "First you claim Lazarus was dead. What disease did he have? What were his vital signs? There are hundreds of documented cases where someone who was declared dead was not actually dead and "miraculously" came back to life. Have you ever seen the faith healers apparently cure the same afflictions psychosomatically making the afflicted feel as if they are truly healed. Do they have the same powers as Christ?"
If you will check in your Bible, you will find that Lazarus was dead, wrapped, and in the grave for four days. As we see from the Scripture passage below, he was already starting to decompose -- and he had the smell of death. The Bible does not tell us what disease or sickness Lazarus had; but, it was obviously serious -- for he died.
John 11:38-45, "So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus said, 'Remove the stone.' Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, 'Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.' Jesus said to her, 'Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?' So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, 'Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.' When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come forth.' The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Unbind him, and let him go.' Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him."
So, I would say, that, no, this is not a case of a person mistakenly thought dead -- he was dead for four days.
Then, you tell us, "I have listed dozens of examples that the bible does have many errors."
Quite frankly, this is the first actual example I have seen from you. Maybe you posted something on one of those other forums you frequent -- but, sorry, my Friend -- not here. Oh, you have made nasty comments about the Bible; but no actual examples, until now. And, I do believe we have put that one to rest.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You say, "First you claim Lazarus was dead. What disease did he have? What were his vital signs? There are hundreds of documented cases where someone who was declared dead was not actually dead and "miraculously" came back to life. Have you ever seen the faith healers apparently cure the same afflictions psychosomatically making the afflicted feel as if they are truly healed. Do they have the same powers as Christ?"
If you will check in your Bible, you will find that Lazarus was dead, wrapped, and in the grave for four days. As we see from the Scripture passage below, he was already starting to decompose -- and he had the smell of death. The Bible does not tell us what disease or sickness Lazarus had; but, it was obviously serious -- for he died.
John 11:38-45, "So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus said, 'Remove the stone.' Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, 'Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.' Jesus said to her, 'Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?' So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, 'Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.' When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come forth.' The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Unbind him, and let him go.' Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him."
So, I would say, that, no, this is not a case of a person mistakenly thought dead -- he was dead for four days.
Then, you tell us, "I have listed dozens of examples that the bible does have many errors."
Quite frankly, this is the first actual example I have seen from you. Maybe you posted something on one of those other forums you frequent -- but, sorry, my Friend -- not here. Oh, you have made nasty comments about the Bible; but no actual examples, until now. And, I do believe we have put that one to rest.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Maybe Lazarus just needed a shower and some Irish Spring. 
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
A friend of mine lost her brother in Iraq recently. The only thing that helps her deal with such a terrible loss is the knowledge that he is in a better place and that one day she'll be with him again.
She is a very intelligent and reasonable person. So I'd like to know who would volunteer to tell her that her belief is stupid and that her brother is not in a better place, but simply no longer in existence, as per the secular view.
If you truly believe these are facts, then isn't it your duty to share that information with her so that she can be free of her irrational beliefs? Something of this importance should be done in person, so any volunteers are welcomed to PM me and I'll provide directions to her house. Make sure her kids are there as well, we can't have her abusing them by filling their heads with such nonsense about their uncle being in Heaven, right?
Any takers?
Nash, telling someone the contradictory truth when they have a taken solace in a false version during the death of a loved one is cruel. It serves no purpose at the time.
If you knew things about her brother, that she obviously didn't, things that your god would definitely not let him into heaven for, would you tell her now? In front of her family?
Of course you wouldn't, and now you see the insensitive nature of your question.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Miami,
How do you know He hasn't?
Hi Bill, I'll ask you again:
Why won't God heal amputees?
I've heard about miracles preformed by god(s) all of my life, and someone pointed out in all of the tales, not one amputee has been healed, at least not one that I know of.
It is a good question.
Do you know of any?
It would certainly go a long way to encourage my belief as well.
Hi Miami,
I did not post the statement below you attribute to me. You are being very dishonest when you post a statement and say that another did it. I won't exactly call you a liar; for that is Fish's favorite word -- but, I will say that you are being very dishonest -- almost to the point of being atheistic.
Please correct your dishonest post.
Thank you and God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
I did not post the statement below you attribute to me. You are being very dishonest when you post a statement and say that another did it. I won't exactly call you a liar; for that is Fish's favorite word -- but, I will say that you are being very dishonest -- almost to the point of being atheistic.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hmmm.....
Religion can give and make excuses as to why god, in his/her infinite power, and granting multitudes of healing and miracles, hasn't healed one single amputee.
Please correct your dishonest post.
Thank you and God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Hi Miami,
You say, "Hi Bill, I'll ask you again: Why won't God heal amputees?"
And, I will ask you the same that I asked DLG, "How do you know that He has not?"
Then, you say, "I've heard about miracles performed by god(s) all of my life, and someone pointed out in all of the tales, not one amputee has been healed, at least not one that I know of."
And, you can affirm that you personally know of all the miracles God has performed? How can you be absolutely sure that God has not done this and many more even greater miracles? You believe in science. Do you have any empirical data showing that God has never healed an amputee? Show me your empirical, observed data or report which shows that God has never done such a miracle.
Keep in mind that it is you science worshipers who demand that everything be proven by empirical data. Please give us your empirical data disproving God's miracles.
And, you ask, "It is a good question. Do you know of any?"
Do you know of any empirical proof that this has never happened?
Finally, you tell us, "It would certainly go a long way to encourage my belief as well."
No, my Friend, until you allow the Holy Spirit to work in your life; I am afraid that no evidence will persuade you. You could stand there and have Balaam's donkey kick you in the head -- and still ask, "What donkey?"
You see, you place a higher value on intellectual snobbery -- than on spiritual wisdom. As we are told in Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools."
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You say, "Hi Bill, I'll ask you again: Why won't God heal amputees?"
And, I will ask you the same that I asked DLG, "How do you know that He has not?"
Then, you say, "I've heard about miracles performed by god(s) all of my life, and someone pointed out in all of the tales, not one amputee has been healed, at least not one that I know of."
And, you can affirm that you personally know of all the miracles God has performed? How can you be absolutely sure that God has not done this and many more even greater miracles? You believe in science. Do you have any empirical data showing that God has never healed an amputee? Show me your empirical, observed data or report which shows that God has never done such a miracle.
Keep in mind that it is you science worshipers who demand that everything be proven by empirical data. Please give us your empirical data disproving God's miracles.
And, you ask, "It is a good question. Do you know of any?"
Do you know of any empirical proof that this has never happened?
Finally, you tell us, "It would certainly go a long way to encourage my belief as well."
No, my Friend, until you allow the Holy Spirit to work in your life; I am afraid that no evidence will persuade you. You could stand there and have Balaam's donkey kick you in the head -- and still ask, "What donkey?"
You see, you place a higher value on intellectual snobbery -- than on spiritual wisdom. As we are told in Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools."
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by dlg2:quote:I have one question for you. What kind of treatment do Doctors use on cancer patients?
Chemo, radiation, surgery (standard, laser, cryo), some experimental viral therapies. But what you don't understand is that, except for surgery those treatments weaken the cancer in general while the body "dissolves" the abnormal cells. Cancer less likely to develope in a 'healthy' person. the body produces cancer specific antibodies and WBC's to attack the abnormal cells before cancer developes. Aside from genetics the main causes of cancer are all preventable. Diet, exposure to carcinogens, smoking, inactivity, stress can increase odds of cancer by impairing immunity, limit sun .... I have seen dozens of people who have drastically alter their lifestyle and have
"cured" themselves of some sorts of cancer, some types of cancer are conducie to this and others aren't. Encapsulate cancers, brain cancers, metastati and rapid proliferating cancers, etc... are hard to treat regardless of the method.
================================================================================================================
DLG2 in one of your post you made this statement here ----> Doctors are trained to fight symptoms and disease not to treat people.
I asked you this question here ----> What kind of treatment do Doctors use on cancer patients?
You gave the answer in quotes above, SO by you answering it, you admited that doctors treat patients. Then by your own words you are discredited.
If you were in a court of law your testimony would not hold up because you have created a hole. So how do you expect anyone in this forum to think you are an expert on God?
Good Day.
quote:Nash, telling someone the contradictory truth when they have a taken solace in a false version during the death of a loved one is cruel. It serves no purpose at the time.
If you knew things about her brother, that she obviously didn't, things that your god would definitely not let him into heaven for, would you tell her now? In front of her family?
Of course you wouldn't, and now you see the insensitive nature of your question.
God does not prevent people from entering Heaven. If He kept people out for what their mistakes, Heaven would be empty. The core belief of Christianity is forgiveness. Of course, just like everyone else, he made his mistakes. However, he was a Christian, meaning he acknowledged them and was forgiven. Therefore I believe he is most definitely with God.
The purpose of that statement was to help everyone visualize the different people who may read these forums at any given time. There have been several times when a local Shoals person has died. A discussion begins and their friends and family finds it.
Being insulting and condescending in regards to such a sensitive subject here is no different than speaking loudly in a crowded room. You never know who's listening and who may be hurt.
That's why it's important to express all of our views no matter how different, but in a respectful manner. Saying insulting things about Christians here is no different than standing in my friend's living room and saying it in person. The effect is the same.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Blah blah blah blah
Bill
A flying purple dragon flew into my window last night and ate pasta. We talked in dragon code for about an hour before he had to fly to cancun for girls gone wild tour he was working on.
Disprove this.
quote:If you truly believe these are facts, then isn't it your duty to share that information with her so that she can be free of her irrational beliefs?
Nash,
You win. I've changed my mind. Yes, I do believe it is my duty to let her know the truth. Can you share a phone number? Email address?
quote:Why won't God heal amputees?
A very good and short response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-R6y8jTDNQ
My own answer: Why should He? We can get by just fine without them.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/974594/nick_vujicic_no_ar...worries_part_1_of_3/
God is not our own personal gene. He doesn't serve us, we're here to serve Him.
Think about it, when a parent gives their child everything they ask for, how do we look at that? We say that the parents are spoiling the child and we consider that to be wrong.
When a parent teaches their child to earn things, get a job, and achieve things on their own, do we say that parent doesn't love them? No, we say the parent is doing good by allowing the child to learn about life.
The same goes with God. If He granted everyone's wish like a gene, we would be spoiled brats. So like any good parent, He gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want. Like any child, sometimes it's hard to see past our personal wants to understand the bigger picture.
Nash,
You forgot to post a email addy.
You forgot to post a email addy.
quote:Nash,
You forgot to post a email addy.
No, I never said I would. I offered to provide an address for a face to face meeting.
Besides, you missed the point of the example. The goal was to put a face and personality to those who may be reading and responding, or just reading. It's easy to say terrible things anonymously and have no regard for the feelings of others.
It's different to say those things looking someone in the eye. However, the effect is the same, whether it's in person or in a forum. The purpose of of my post was to ask that we all show the same respect here as we would if we were face to face. That has been lacking lately.
quote:I offered to provide an address for a face to face meeting.
Okay, give me an address. It is my duty to talk to this women as soon as possible.
secularism cannot explain me. I do not refer to my body, but me. My personality, my wants, my dreams, my loves, my fears....my soul. I know who and what I am. secularism cannot exlain this. You can laugh at this statement all you want, but deep inside, you know it's true. I am a human being with a spirit. The body can be explained by combinations of amino acids, proteins, etc., but my spirit cannot be explained by science or secularism. Another thing secularism cannot do is provide hope. To believe in hope will require one to believe in the spirit. To disbelieve in the spirit is to disbelieve in oneself. It does not get any more basic than that. Gofish, you can say this is not "testable or rational", but each individual knows what I say to be the truth. It cannot be denied. To do so would be to deny your very own existance.
From the first post.
"any volunteers are welcomed to PM me and I'll provide directions to her house."
"any volunteers are welcomed to PM me and I'll provide directions to her house."
quote:"any volunteers are welcomed to PM me and I'll provide directions to her house."
Okay, Nash, please PM me the address. I also sent you a PM requesting the same.
quote:but my spirit cannot be explained by science or secularism.
Sure it can. There actually is a "spiritual" part of the brain that, when properly stimulated, can "make" a person spiritual. For example, people who have done a lot of acid can end up being crazy or perhaps just spiritual. In fact, there are people on this very forum who are discussing inducing spiritual experiences using mind altering substances. Scientists have recently found that they can electrically stimulate specific areas and actually induce euphoric sense of spirituality.
Science can rationally explain our penchant for all sort of behavioral traits such as anxiety, thrill-seeking and even homosexuality. And spirituality.
There is at least one compelling study that shows that a specific gene (called the "God Gene") may be specifically responsible for spirituality.
And, of course, there have been reams of books and studies that suggest a evolutionary benefit for spirituality.
quote:Another thing secularism cannot do is provide hope.
Oh? Are you saying that it is not possible that I have "hope"? Nah, of course you know that is a silly statement. I have had plenty of opportunity to succumb to hopeless situations and I've never succumbed.
So, sorry but you are wrong on both counts.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Miami,
I did not post the statement below you attribute to me. You are being very dishonest when you post a statement and say that another did it. I won't exactly call you a liar; for that is Fish's favorite word -- but, I will say that you are being very dishonest -- almost to the point of being atheistic.quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hmmm.....
Religion can give and make excuses as to why god, in his/her infinite power, and granting multitudes of healing and miracles, hasn't healed one single amputee.
Please correct your dishonest post.
Thank you and God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Bill, to accuse me of being dishonest is not right, and you know this. You can't find a dishonest post by me because there isn't one.
Anyone here who has responded to a quote knows that in my haste, I work 9-5, I simply removed one too many "[QUOTE]" code brackets.
Besides that, all one would have to do is read a few posts prior to realize what happened.
Not to mention, that you quoting me with a question like that would be completely out of character for you.
I will gladly amend the post/typo.
Is there something else bothering you?
Feel free to PM me if you don't care to discuss it publicly.
Regards, miamizsun
quote:Originally posted by miamizsun:quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Miami,
How do you know He hasn't?
Hi Bill, I'll ask you again:
Why won't God heal amputees?
I've heard about miracles preformed by god(s) all of my life, and someone pointed out in all of the tales, not one amputee has been healed, at least not one that I know of.
It is a good question.
Do you know of any?
It would certainly go a long way to encourage my belief as well.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:quote:Nash, telling someone the contradictory truth when they have a taken solace in a false version during the death of a loved one is cruel. It serves no purpose at the time.
If you knew things about her brother, that she obviously didn't, things that your god would definitely not let him into heaven for, would you tell her now? In front of her family?
Of course you wouldn't, and now you see the insensitive nature of your question.
God does not prevent people from entering Heaven. If He kept people out for what their mistakes, Heaven would be empty. The core belief of Christianity is forgiveness. Of course, just like everyone else, he made his mistakes. However, he was a Christian, meaning he acknowledged them and was forgiven. Therefore I believe he is most definitely with God.
The purpose of that statement was to help everyone visualize the different people who may read these forums at any given time. There have been several times when a local Shoals person has died. A discussion begins and their friends and family finds it.
Being insulting and condescending in regards to such a sensitive subject here is no different than speaking loudly in a crowded room. You never know who's listening and who may be hurt.
That's why it's important to express all of our views no matter how different, but in a respectful manner. Saying insulting things about Christians here is no different than standing in my friend's living room and saying it in person. The effect is the same.
Nash, I agree with being respectful. Would it be respectful for you to give out someone's address to another seeking a belief conflict at this difficult time in their lives?
This is a public forum with guidelines from the TD/NYT.
I'm surprised at your attempt at being politically correct. If someone dies of lung cancer should Marlborough pull all of their print ads in fear of offending their survivors?
Cirrhosis of the liver and Budweiser pulling TV commercials?
It is all subjective.
Regards, miamizsun
Hi Miami,
You say, "Bill, to accuse me of being dishonest is not right, and you know this. You can't find a dishonest post by me because there isn't one. Anyone here who has responded to a quote knows that in my haste, I work 9-5, I simply removed one too many "[QUOTE]" code brackets."
And, that is exactly why I did not call you a liar; for I honestly thought that it was a mistake. But, I doubt that most of the people reading our posts knew it was a mistake. I, too, have made that mistake. But, when I do, I go back and correct it right away. I always read my post, after posting, just to make sure I have not made such a mistake -- and, if I cannot correct the mistake, I will remove it and post using another format -- such as this format.
But, to post a statement saying that I made a specific statement -- and to leave that post as it is -- is, at the least, dishonest.
Then, you say, "Besides that, all one would have to do is read a few posts prior to realize what happened."
When one posts a statement attributed to another, whether on purpose or by mistake -- why should he/she depend upon others to read back in the discussion to see if this post was correct. When we read a post; we naturally assume this person posted exactly what he/she wanted to say.
And, you say, "Not to mention, that you quoting me with a question like that would be completely out of character for you."
Why would it be out of character for ANYONE to see a statement wrongly attributed to himself/herself and question why the poster had made the erroneous post? This would be in character for anyone with self respect.
Finally, you say, "I will gladly amend the post/typo. Is there something else bothering you?"
I see that you already have reposted your original question. Why? Why not just delete the erroneous post; I have already responded to your question with my answer. There is no need to repost your original question and gives folks the impression that I have not answered you. If you want to be honest and straight forward -- just delete them both and lets get on with the dialogue.
You tell me, "Feel free to PM me is you don't care to discuss it publicly. Regards, miamizsun"
Miami, I have no problem honestly and sincerely discussing all the issues on the Forum. I have nothing to hide. If you send me a PM, I will respond via PM -- but, other than that -- LET'S TALK!
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You say, "Bill, to accuse me of being dishonest is not right, and you know this. You can't find a dishonest post by me because there isn't one. Anyone here who has responded to a quote knows that in my haste, I work 9-5, I simply removed one too many "[QUOTE]" code brackets."
And, that is exactly why I did not call you a liar; for I honestly thought that it was a mistake. But, I doubt that most of the people reading our posts knew it was a mistake. I, too, have made that mistake. But, when I do, I go back and correct it right away. I always read my post, after posting, just to make sure I have not made such a mistake -- and, if I cannot correct the mistake, I will remove it and post using another format -- such as this format.
But, to post a statement saying that I made a specific statement -- and to leave that post as it is -- is, at the least, dishonest.
Then, you say, "Besides that, all one would have to do is read a few posts prior to realize what happened."
When one posts a statement attributed to another, whether on purpose or by mistake -- why should he/she depend upon others to read back in the discussion to see if this post was correct. When we read a post; we naturally assume this person posted exactly what he/she wanted to say.
And, you say, "Not to mention, that you quoting me with a question like that would be completely out of character for you."
Why would it be out of character for ANYONE to see a statement wrongly attributed to himself/herself and question why the poster had made the erroneous post? This would be in character for anyone with self respect.
Finally, you say, "I will gladly amend the post/typo. Is there something else bothering you?"
I see that you already have reposted your original question. Why? Why not just delete the erroneous post; I have already responded to your question with my answer. There is no need to repost your original question and gives folks the impression that I have not answered you. If you want to be honest and straight forward -- just delete them both and lets get on with the dialogue.
You tell me, "Feel free to PM me is you don't care to discuss it publicly. Regards, miamizsun"
Miami, I have no problem honestly and sincerely discussing all the issues on the Forum. I have nothing to hide. If you send me a PM, I will respond via PM -- but, other than that -- LET'S TALK!
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Nash says, in a private message, "No, I'm not going to give you the address, for her and her children's emotional safety and your personal safety."
And I didn't want it, Nash. I was simply calling your bluff. I was also illustrating the difference between intentionally offending someone inadvertent offenses that we all face every single day of our lives.
I WANT you to challenge my beliefs (or lack thereof) every single day. If you don't challenge them I will challenge myself -- which is the reason for my post. I gave you the perfect opportunity to show me something that makes sense and, as usual, you failed miserably (and kudos to our new friend Debra who did offer a meaningful response that taught me a thing or two).
I WANT you to show me why my views are wrong to have. If my logic cannot stand up to your scrutiny, then I should reconsider my logic. That is the only way to find truth. In return, I will definitely continue to challenge yours as long as you (and anyone else who CHOOSES to read me) will let me.
(PS: You suggested in your PM that you called this thread to her attention and she got upset. Who's the insensitive moron in this case, you or I? That is something I never would have done, Nash.)
And I didn't want it, Nash. I was simply calling your bluff. I was also illustrating the difference between intentionally offending someone inadvertent offenses that we all face every single day of our lives.
I WANT you to challenge my beliefs (or lack thereof) every single day. If you don't challenge them I will challenge myself -- which is the reason for my post. I gave you the perfect opportunity to show me something that makes sense and, as usual, you failed miserably (and kudos to our new friend Debra who did offer a meaningful response that taught me a thing or two).
I WANT you to show me why my views are wrong to have. If my logic cannot stand up to your scrutiny, then I should reconsider my logic. That is the only way to find truth. In return, I will definitely continue to challenge yours as long as you (and anyone else who CHOOSES to read me) will let me.
(PS: You suggested in your PM that you called this thread to her attention and she got upset. Who's the insensitive moron in this case, you or I? That is something I never would have done, Nash.)
quote:Nash, I agree with being respectful. Would it be respectful for you to give out someone's address to another seeking a belief conflict at this difficult time in their lives?
This is a public forum with guidelines from the TD/NYT.
I'm surprised at your attempt at being politically correct. If someone dies of lung cancer should Marlborough pull all of their print ads in fear of offending their survivors?
Cirrhosis of the liver and Budweiser pulling TV commercials?
I did not give out the address and I don't intend on it. The whole point was if it would be wrong to say it to someone's face, then it would be wrong to say it here. The effect is the same. The illustration is being taken too literally, which is kind of ironic.
Comparing cigarette and beer ads to atheism is apples and oranges. Seeing advertisements of the thing that killed a loved one can be upsetting, but not the fault of the advertisers. Telling someone they are stupid and ridiculing them for believing that they will see that loved one again is entirely different.
One can openly express their views without being insulting or insensitive. I'm guilty of this as well, but we should keep in mind that we're not dealing with emotionless screen names. We're dealing with real people with real feelings on the other side of the screen.
quote:Nash says, in a private message, "No, I'm not going to give you the address, for her and her children's emotional safety and your personal safety."
And I didn't want it, Nash. I was simply calling your bluff. I was also illustrating the difference between intentionally offending someone inadvertent offenses that we all face every single day of our lives.
You did not post my entire response. Here it is.
quote:"You've missed the point entirely.
No, I'm not going to give you the address, for her and her children's emotional safety and your personal safety.
The goal was to hopefully encourage you to show more respect for others. She was at my house when I was talking about this forum with some other friends. She heard me repeat some of the things that you and others have said and became very upset. It bothered me a great deal and I realized that there may be people just like her reading but not responding. There may be others who are deeply hurt by some of the terrible things said here, so we all should be more aware.
I was hoping that it would open other's eyes as it did mine. I believe you're too focused on winning some imaginary game rather than look at the meanings of posts. No doubt you will post insults here and in the main forum, my guess resorting to your old favorite "liar". It doesn't prove you right, just proves you are very angry and bitter, which is very sad."
As you can see, no where in my response did I say I called this thread to her attention. The discussion happened several months ago before the thread was started. Please, make sure you read the posts before you respond.
I knew what you were doing. As I said, you were focused on some game rather than the point I was making. Your post shows that.
As for your question, I answered it. That's what you wanted, so I don't see how that is a failure.
I'm done with this, it's become pointless. My goal was to encourage people to consider the silent reader when posting and to understand that things said on here can be devastatingly hurtful. That point seems to have been lost, so it's there that I failed, not with the original question.
quote:My goal was to encourage people to consider the silent reader when posting and to understand that things said on here can be devastatingly hurtful. That point seems to have been lost,
Umm, no, it was never a good point to begin with.
I believe you have stated you are a South Park fan? I'm sure you have written the producers to let them know how offended you are every time you watch the show, right? Yeah, riiight.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Miami,
You say, "Bill, to accuse me of being dishonest is not right, and you know this. You can't find a dishonest post by me because there isn't one. Anyone here who has responded to a quote knows that in my haste, I work 9-5, I simply removed one too many "[QU0TE]" code brackets."
And, that is exactly why I did not call you a liar; for I honestly thought that it was a mistake. But, I doubt that most of the people reading our posts knew it was a mistake. I, too, have made that mistake. But, when I do, I go back and correct it right away.I always read my post, after posting, just to make sure I have not made such a mistake -- and, if I cannot correct the mistake, I will remove it and post using another format -- such as this format.quote:So you were temporarily dishonest?
But, to post a statement saying that I made a specific statement -- and to leave that post as it is -- is, at the least, dishonest.
Then, you say, "Besides that, all one would have to do is read a few posts prior to realize what happened."
When one posts a statement attributed to another, whether on purpose or by mistake -- why should he/she depend upon others to read back in the discussion to see if this post was correct.quote:Bill, it is a thread, so yeah if I see a conversation going on and it interests me then I will go back and read those posts involved, we're only talking a couple of responses here.
When we read a post; we naturally assume this person posted exactly what he/she wanted to say.
quote:Agreed, we assume so.
And, you say, "Not to mention, that you quoting me with a question like that would be completely out of character for you."
Why would it be out of character for ANYONE to see a statement wrongly attributed to himself/herself and question why the poster had made the erroneous post? This would be in character for anyone with self respect.
quote:Are you saying that I don't have any self respect for my words or for the people here? If so, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is incorrect.
Finally, you say, "I will gladly amend the post/typo. Is there something else bothering you?"
I see that you already have reposted your original question. Why?
quote:I was hoping you would answer it, have a look at your answer and see if it addresses the question.
Why not just delete the erroneous post;
quote:Fixing the typo serves to clear it up and that was my intention.
I have already responded to your question with my answer. There is no need to repost your original question and gives folks the impression that I have not answered you.
quote:See my reply above.
If you want to be honest and straight forward -- just delete them both and lets get on with the dialogue.
quote:Again why delete anything, the wording was correct, the person attributed was not. It is now as it should be.
You tell me, "Feel free to PM me is you don't care to discuss it publicly. Regards, miamizsun"
Miami, I have no problem honestly and sincerely discussing all the issues on the Forum. I have nothing to hide. If you send me a PM, I will respond via PM -- but, other than that -- LET'S TALK!
quote:Agreed.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
So have you heard of any amputees being healed by a god?
regards, miamizsun
quote:Umm, no, it was never a good point to begin with.
Consideration of others is not a good point? I disagree.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:but my spirit cannot be explained by science or secularism.
Sure it can. There actually is a "spiritual" part of the brain that, when properly stimulated, can "make" a person spiritual. For example, people who have done a lot of acid can end up being crazy or perhaps just spiritual. In fact, there are people on this very forum who are discussing inducing spiritual experiences using mind altering substances. Scientists have recently found that they can electrically stimulate specific areas and actually induce euphoric sense of spirituality.
Science can rationally explain our penchant for all sort of behavioral traits such as anxiety, thrill-seeking and even homosexuality. And spirituality.
There is at least one compelling study that shows that a specific gene (called the "God Gene") may be specifically responsible for spirituality.
And, of course, there have been reams of books and studies that suggest a evolutionary benefit for spirituality.quote:Another thing secularism cannot do is provide hope.
Oh? Are you saying that it is not possible that I have "hope"? Nah, of course you know that is a silly statement. I have had plenty of opportunity to succumb to hopeless situations and I've never succumbed.
So, sorry but you are wrong on both counts.
Fish, you pointed out that no one could provide "examples" of healings by God, yet you come up with "God Gene" That's funny. Guy you can do better than that! As for acid causing euphoria simulating "spirituality" nothing in my post refered to "spirituality" which most people are refering to as a "feeling". No, you understood my post, and it is pointless to belabor my point. Each person has a soul or spirit. You know it. I know it. We all know it. Secularism and "compelling studies" do not begin to explain it. Frankly Fish, I am dissapointed in you. I really thought you could come up with a better argument than that. As for hope, again you come up with unproven situations just like the healings others have written about. How can you say you have hope when there is nothing to hope in. If the situation is "hopeless" then what would a secularist put hope in? If all things are by chance and random order, then why have hope? Hope won't change it one iota. Your statement is wrong. I say it is impossible for you to have hope, because you have nothing to have hope in.
quote:Each person has a soul or spirit. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
No, I certainly don't don't know it. Really, I don't. You certainly seem to believe there is but offer no rational reason for why I should. I have have been given no reason to believe there is anything inside my body but atoms and chemical reactions. And consciousness which is truly an amazing concept.
quote:I say it is impossible for you to have hope, because you have nothing to have hope in.
So you assert that it is impossible for me to "hope" that the sun will also rise tomorrow? Do you not think I am capable of "hoping" that I will be around long enough to know my grandkids? Am I not allowed to "hope" I will win the Powerball lottery unless I have been saved by the blood of Jesus?
Surely you can't be serious.
Tell me: If I were able to strip all your belief in a deity away with a snap of the finger, do you really think you would instantly stop "hoping" fer better things in this life?
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Each person has a soul or spirit. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
No, I certainly don't don't know it. Really, I don't. You certainly seem to believe there is but offer no rational reason for why I should. I have have been given no reason to believe there is anything inside my body but atoms and chemical reactions. And consciousness which is truly an amazing concept.quote:I say it is impossible for you to have hope, because you have nothing to have hope in.
So you assert that it is impossible for me to "hope" that the sun will also rise tomorrow? Do you not think I am capable of "hoping" that I will be around long enough to know my grandkids? Am I not allowed to "hope" I will win the Powerball lottery unless I have been saved by the blood of Jesus?
Surely you can't be serious.
Tell me: If I were able to strip all your belief in a deity away with a snap of the finger, do you really think you would instantly stop "hoping" fer better things in this life?
But, praise the Living God -- an atheist cannot do that. So, we who believe in that Living God will always have hope -- eternal hope and eternal life with our Living God.
While you atheist have just this life to hope on -- and then, eternal life with your god, Satan.
Christian hope is something to be desired; something to be cherished. And, it is so sad to see folks like you, Fish, who do not have this hope.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Each person has a soul or spirit. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
No, I certainly don't don't know it. Really, I don't. You certainly seem to believe there is but offer no rational reason for why I should. I have have been given no reason to believe there is anything inside my body but atoms and chemical reactions. And consciousness which is truly an amazing concept.quote:I say it is impossible for you to have hope, because you have nothing to have hope in.
So you assert that it is impossible for me to "hope" that the sun will also rise tomorrow? Do you not think I am capable of "hoping" that I will be around long enough to know my grandkids? Am I not allowed to "hope" I will win the Powerball lottery unless I have been saved by the blood of Jesus?
Surely you can't be serious.
Tell me: If I were able to strip all your belief in a deity away with a snap of the finger, do you really think you would instantly stop "hoping" fer better things in this life?
Fist of all, if you have no soul or spirit, what are you then. What makes you who you are? What makes a sunset beautiful to you?(please don't say you don't find them beautiful). Why do you like certain music? Surely you are more than just a wild animal. You can deny these things all you like. You can deny anything you like. I cannot prove to you that you have a soul or spirit, but neither can I prove that you love, hate, feel sadness, or enjoy the taste of a good steak. Something in me understands I have a spirit. I am me and not someone else. As far as hope; one cannot have hope in random events such as a lottery. You can want or desire these things, but there is no hope. Does a dog hope the sun will come up tomorrow? Does a cat hope to win the lottery. I doubt it. Only a spirit can hope. If you have no spirit, then there is no hope - only randomness and chance. You have answered your own question.
quote:I cannot prove to you that you have a soul or spirit,
Exactly. I cannot prove that you don't have a spirit. The fact is that you and I have similar wishes and desires. We try to be moral and fall short. We hope for better things. We all feel the same things whether we are "spiritual" or not.
So, again, there is nothing there that religion can do that secularism cannot.
quote:Only a spirit can hope. If you have no spirit, then there is no hope
Sorry but nothing you have said makes that statement any clearer. It simply does not make sense. Perhaps what you are calling "spirit" is what I would call "consciousness" or perhaps "self awareness"? If so, then you and I are in agreement.