Jump to content

Semmelweis Reflex


Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator
6 minutes ago, Krowb said:

Indirectly.

 

1.  If persons who "believes" could suddenly drink any poison and not die (Mark 16:18)

2. If persons who "believes" could lay hands on the sick and the sick recover - no medical treatment needed (Mark 16:18)

3. If persons who had biblical faith could move mountains (Matthew 17:20)

4. If nothing was impossible for those with biblical faith (Matthew 17:20)

5.  If anything would be done by two or more believers on earth (Matthew 18:19)

6.  testing god by bringing a full tithe into the storehouse (Malachi 3:10)

 

If anything of these could be observed as the bible indicates, it would be evidence the bible is at least speaking to something beyond our current realm of understanding.

THAT'S how you provide evidence for your assertions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
7 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Can you define what a deity is? And how can you do that? With science? 

Are you just being intentionally obtuse here?  None of us are going to take the bait because science is agnostic and has nothing to say on the subject of gods, angels, devils, or fucking leprechauns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

 

I've said God can't be seen and cant appear in the universe. 

 

Why do you think he's real then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Nephilim. Humanity hasn't annihilated itself since then because the Nephilim were destroyed. God didn't and wouldn't tweak brains. We have to do that ourselves. 

 

 

 

Why not just kill the nephilim instead of the people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
8 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Why not just kill the nephilim instead of the people?

Because mysterious ways and shit.  Duh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

God isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscient and isn't omnipresent. How do I know that?  

 

He can create the universe and everything in it but cant seem to do other probably simpler things? Like appear in person? That's absurd. And contradictory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh brother, am I glad that I've declined to get involved in another game of burden tennis...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

...that's going to lead down another bottomless rabbit hole.

 

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

Indirectly.

 

1.  If persons who "believes" could suddenly drink any poison and not die (Mark 16:18)

2. If persons who "believes" could lay hands on the sick and the sick recover - no medical treatment needed (Mark 16:18)

 

 

Okay. Mark 16:9 through to it's conclusion are spurious. It only appears in later manuscripts. 

 

Quote

3. If persons who had biblical faith could move mountains (Matthew 17:20)

 

How do you know if they have "biblical faith" or not? What is faith. Earlier I pointed out that the Latin word for credit means faith. If you have credit, like a mining operation for example, could you move mountains? Is it a literal statement? How do you know?

 

Quote

4. If nothing was impossible for those with biblical faith (Matthew 17:20)

 

If I tell my young niece that anything is possible, that she can do anything she wants and can be anything she wants are there implied stipulations? Can you provide a Biblical example of this in a literal sense?

 

Quote

5.  If anything would be done by two or more believers on earth (Matthew 18:19)

 

Se 4 above.

 

Quote

6.  testing god by bringing a full tithe into the storehouse (Malachi 3:10)

 

You lost me there. Could you elaborate?

 

Quote

If anything of these could be observed as the bible indicates, it would be evidence the bible is at least speaking to something beyond our current realm of understanding.

 

Beyond our current realm of understanding? I'm not sure what that has to do with what we are talking about. How would we know it does that and how could we even know if it had. If it were beyond our current understanding how could we understand it?

 

Quote

Also, do you believe in the omni conception of god?  To say god can't appear in the universe contradicts several OT appearances and puts a very clear and unusual finite limitation.

 

Basically, no. It is, though a little more complicated than that. If I say an animal is omnivorous what does it mean? It can eat the stream of time, nuclear explosions, moon rocks? 

 

God isn't omnipresent because the heavens can't contain him and his position is fixed in heaven. (2 Chronicles 2:6; Psalm 115:3)

 

He isn't omni in the exagerated religious sense often proposed. He can get to know anything he wants be he doesn't know all. Didn't know if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree. Didn't know that Cain killed Abel. Didn't know if the complaints he received regarding Sodom and Gomorrah were true. 

 

Did God walk in the garden with Adam and Eve? How can it be said that no man has seen God? The Logos, Michael, who was Jesus when on earth in the flesh, is his spokesperson. That is who they saw. 

 

Is God omnipotent? God can't lie. 

 

Jehovah God never appears as you state. You have made a fairly good argument so if you are interested in challenging me on that point that would be cool. I could explain the texts in question. I would highly recommend at least considering my proposition that when God speaks to someone face to face in the Bible it means in a direct way. Rather than speaking through visions or dreams the person, such as Moses, deals directly with God's representative. Numbers 12:6-8; Exodus 33:20; Acts 7:35, 38; Galatians 3:19. Example: Men call the angels who speak for God “God” or “Jehovah” by name and yet other times the same person speaking as an angel or a man. Genesis 32:24-30; Hosea 12:3, 4.

 

Quote

So far @WalterP has the gist of it.  You have an interpretation that you believe is correct (not that anyone would intentionally hold an incorrect belief) yet so far are unable to produce any argument or evidence that moves the needle beyond what other similarly situated belief structures can produce.

 

Nothing anyone says about the thousands year old text under discussion is original. I always produce at least a brief and rudimentary argument and evidence based upon the belief structure under consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

He can create the universe and everything in it but cant seem to do other probably simpler things? Like appear in person? That's absurd. And contradictory. 

 

He's thrown half the Bible out the window with his interpretation. I cant see why he even believes in jehova. He obviously doesn't believe anything the Bible says that Jehova did in the past.

 

His profile says he was an atheist for 27 years. I find it hard to believe that a 27 year atheist could believe the horses shit that is dribbling down this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Nephilim. Humanity hasn't annihilated itself since then because the Nephilim were destroyed. God didn't and wouldn't tweak brains. We have to do that ourselves. 

 

 

I can see where tweaking someone's thoughts could be so invasive. People have rights! No, it's much better to drown all but 8 people on the planet than to simply erase their bad attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
6 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

I always produce at least a brief and rudimentary argument and evidence based upon the belief structure under consideration. 

That's an interesting way to describe mere assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's an interesting way to describe mere assertion, conjecture, and personal interpretation. 

 

In the debate of Jehovah God's alleged existence you and I have the same resources. I may be biased regarding my own abilities but honesty, I think you haven't even begun to come close to my assertions, conjectures and personal interpretations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I can see where tweaking someone's thoughts could be so invasive. People have rights! No, it's much better to drown all but 8 people on the planet than to simply erase their bad attitude. 

 

If you have a thousand head of cattle and all but 8 have a contagious terminal disease you get rid of all but 8. Plus you are assuming that the simple remedy you prescribe would be effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, florduh said:

THAT'S how you provide evidence for your assertions.

 

So long as it agrees with your uninformed opinion?

 

See my rebuttal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

He's thrown half the Bible out the window with his interpretation. I sent see why he even believes in jehova. He obviously doesn't believe anything the Bible says that Jehova did in the past.

 

His profile says he was an atheist for 27 years. I find it hard to believe that a 27 year atheist could believe the horses shit that is dribbling down this thread. 

 

Yes, and this word doesnt mean what it says in the original greek or whatever. This and that is a bad translation. I'm getting the feeling Jesus isnt really that interested in us if his book is so fucked up. As well as his general lack of communication [edit] with his people in 2021. Seems to me like we have excuses after excuses after excuses about why the bible doesnt square with reality or agree with itself. I just dont understand why someone would want to concoct such a load of BS and act like it's all true. 

 

Then again, I dont care much about worshiping heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

If you have a thousand head of cattle and all but 8 have a contagious terminal disease you get rid of all but 8. Plus you are assuming that the simple remedy you prescribe would be effective. 

 

Did you miss the whole point where a world wide flood never happened. There is absolutely no evidence of a world wide flood. Only localized and costal flooding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

He can create the universe and everything in it but cant seem to do other probably simpler things? Like appear in person? That's absurd. And contradictory. 

 

So by that logic if I can build a birdhouse I should be able to put on a show inside it? That may be more absurd than my explanation. I don't see how it is contradictory though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Did you miss the whole point where a world wide flood never happened. There is absolutely no evidence of a world wide flood. Only localized and costal flooding.

 

Never happened, huh? Well if you say it it must be true. How many world wide floods can we test that hypothesis with? Where's your study? What were your parameters? 

 

Saying science determines it never happened is obtuse. Because it can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

If you have a thousand head of cattle and all but 8 have a contagious terminal disease you get rid of all but 8. Plus you are assuming that the simple remedy you prescribe would be effective. 

 

If 'I' had all those cattle I might have to kill all but 8. If, on the other hand I was the creator of the universe, creating life from non-life out of nothing, I would have powers at my disposal to kill just the disease. 

 

Bible God can turn Moses' staff into a snake...but can't handle making people a bit nicer without killing them. Seems legit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Never happened, huh? Well if you say it it must be true. How many world wide floods can we test that hypothesis with? Where's your study? What were your parameters? 

 

Saying science determines something never happened is obtuse. Because it can't.

 

Look David. Archeology can and does prove facts and dispel falsehoods in certain areas. In this day in age soil samples, core samples, etc have been studied world wide. And they have concluded that there was never a "world wide" flood. The only evidence of major flooding is mostly in costal regions that were flooded from massive waterflows from melting glacial lakes that poured into the ocean. 

 

Yes they have found whole civilizations under water. And these floods are considered to be the sources of the biblical and other myths. So yes the sciences can prove and disprove certain things like that. If there was a world wide flood there would be world wide evidence of the event. 

 

There is not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Yes, and this word doesnt mean what it says in the original greek or whatever. This and that is a bad translation. I'm getting the feeling Jesus isnt really that interested in us if his book is so fucked up. As well as his general lack of communication. Seems to me like we have excuses after excuses after excuses about why the bible doesnt square with reality or agree with itself. I just dont understand why someone would want to concoct such a load of BS and act like it's all true. 

 

Then again, I dont care much about worshiping heroes.

 

Don't tell me I can't be right, show me where I'm wrong. If the example of the Ex Christian is as it seems, so totally ignorant of these things and unwilling to do just a little research it doesn't take a genius to see that they can't have been much of a Christian in the first place. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Look David. Archeology can and does prove facts and dispel falsehoods in certain areas. In this day in age soil samples, core samples, etc have been studied world wide. And they have concluded that there was never a "world wide" flood. The only evidence of major flooding is mostly in costal regions that were flooded from massive waterflows from melting glacial lakes that poured into the ocean. 

 

Yes they have found whole civilizations under water. And these floods are considered to be the sources of the biblical and other myths. So yes the sciences can prove and disprove certain things like that. If there was a world wide flood there would be world wide evidence of the event. 

 

There is not

 

Stop abusing science for your confirmation bias. Stop making vague statements about a scientific outcome that has never been done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If 'I' had all those cattle I might have to kill all but 8. If, on the other hand I was the creator of the universe, creating life from non-life out of nothing, I would have powers at my disposal to kill just the disease. 

 

Bible God can turn Moses' staff into a snake...but can't handle making people a bit nicer without killing them. Seems legit. 

 

How do you know what a creator of the universe can and can't do? What he is willing or unwilling to do? Besides, how do you know that isn't what he did? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Did you forget about microscopes for a second, there, buddy?

 

Finally! Such a simple answer. So, we make a device that can see. Like, we didn't know germs existed. Now we do. So, when science comes up with that device we can continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

He's thrown half the Bible out the window with his interpretation. I sent see why he even believes in jehova. He obviously doesn't believe anything the Bible says that Jehova did in the past.

 

His profile says he was an atheist for 27 years. I find it hard to believe that a 27 year atheist could believe the horses shit that is dribbling down this thread. 

 

Yeah. You may be right. I must have just made it all up. Just trying to get attention. What was I thinking? If only we had some electronic device that could connect other devises giving us information at our fingertips someone could have stopped me from this apostate blasphemy.

 

Some sort of superhighway of information . . . 

 

"Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth . . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles - all slept together without awareness of one another." - Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Volume 11, page 276)

"Hades . . . it corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell' " - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Volume 2 page 187)

"First it (Hell) stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament . Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation." - Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Volume 12, page 2.)

"Much Confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Volume XIV, page 81)

"The word ( Sheol ) occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so 'hell' ( KJV ) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together . . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the fish." - A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida, 1978, page 37.

 

I even gave you guys the link to my old website with all of this information on it. 

 

You're not interested in the truth about God's possible existence. You never were. Why are you still wasting your time with it? Do a little research for fuck's sake.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.