What The Bible Is About

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Note how poster SemmelweisRelex continues in his attempts to control the conversation, laced with rejection of what others say.  He pretends to not have the time for "us", and yet here is is again, apparently in need of additional attention.

 

Also note he provides no evidence.  None whatsoever.  And he is more set on well developed passive-aggressive tactics and devoid of any interest in honest conversation.   If he learned to monetize his behavior, he might become a wealthy grifter.

 

I'm new here and not yet confident in distinguishing one poster from the next. Having said that, what I've noticed is that you seem to confuse your ability to criticize on a personal level, like a political smear, with adding anything of any real value to the discussion. 

 

Don't worry so much about me. Worry more about what I say. If I say nothing respond in kind. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I have an invisible monkey that fucks footballs.  I don't have a gnat's ass worth of evidence to support this claim; but I can prove it disirregardless. 

 

See, "invisible" comes from Latin invisibilis, from in- ‘not’ + visibilis 'visible'.  Footballs exist as a matter of commonly accepted knowledge.  And "monkey" is a generic term that covers a broad range of mammalian primate species, none of which would exist without some kind of fucking going on. 

 

Therefore, you simply have to accept, by faith, that I do, in fact, have an invisible monkey that fucks footballs.

[SemmelweisReflex]

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I doubt it. In casual discussion you haven't shown too much awareness of the issues we send you links to. That's why you're getting the links.

 

But we can do shorter posts. We can toss aside citation as well. And just bare knuckle duke it out in any given issue from the gut if you'd prefer. 

 

You are addressing the issues by giving me links to stuff you read. There is nothing wrong with links. A brief summary of the relevant content for our discourse followed by a link for further reference should I need it. I don't. 

 

I'm not going to supply you with a link to a theological dictionary as an answer just because I think it will convince you of something. I'm not here to proselytize or convert. I'm here to discuss and debate. More discuss than debate. Debate is a waste of time. I'm interested in what you think and more importantly why you think it. Not what you've read or agree with. 

 

Talk to me. In your own words. I don't care about proof. You can't prove to me what you had for lunch. You can't prove to me God doesn't exist. I can't prove to you he does. You can't prove to me we evolved and I can't prove to you we were created. Get over it. It's nonsense. 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

19 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I have an invisible monkey that fucks footballs.  I don't have a gnat's ass worth of evidence to support this claim; but I can prove it disirregardless. 

 

See, "invisible" comes from Latin invisibilis, from in- ‘not’ + visibilis 'visible'.  Footballs exist as a matter of commonly accepted knowledge.  And "monkey" is a generic term that covers a broad range of mammalian primate species, none of which would exist without some kind of fucking going on. 

 

Therefore, you simply have to accept, by faith, that I do, in fact, have an invisible monkey that fucks footballs.

 

You people are so neurotic and dogmatic. The one thing I don't like about militant atheists. Always in that zone. Gnashing their teeth or licking their wounds. They love to slap one another on the back. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

You people are so neurotic and dogmatic. The one thing I don't like about militant atheists. Always in that zone. Gnashing their teeth or licking their wounds. They love to slap one another on the back. 

I'm not an atheist.

[SemmelweisReflex]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not an atheist.

 

It doesn't matter. Atheist and theist are only classifications. There are two categories. Believer and unbeliever. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

There are two categories. Believer and unbeliever.

So, then, you accept my claim to having an invisible football-fucking monkey.

[SemmelweisReflex]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, then, you accept my claim to having an invisible football-fucking monkey.

 

Why wouldn't I?! I don't give a shit. What the hell do I care? 

[SemmelweisReflex]

On 6/10/2021 at 11:15 PM, DarkBishop said:

Mmmmm in the words of my old church. Show me book, chapter, and verse for all that. Not that anything in the old testament is a credible source of information anyway. It can all be proven to be false. Through archeology. ....... oh..... my bad.... thats one of those sciences you don't like. Like geology.

 

Doesn't even look like ya got the order of creation correct. 

 

Question: I've never studied what Jehovas witness believe. Is this jargon part of their beliefs? If so. Why do you think the God lort almighty waited so damn long to set the record straight? I would ask the same of the SDA or LDS aswell. 

 

Like I said I can give chapter and verse, but it would take time and there isn't any point if you really don't care. The JW's would agree with everything I said in the OP. I think. They change constantly. Like science. Science and theology, specifically Biblical theology, interpretation, are all interpretational. The difference between science and religion is that science is more dogmatic. Disagreement isn't tolerated. That may be why unbelievers always complain about the lack of conformity in religion. I don't know though. It could just be that they are assholes. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

19 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Like I said I can give chapter and verse, but it would take time and there isn't any point if you really don't care. The JW's would agree with everything I said in the OP. I think. They change constantly. Like science. Science and theology, specifically Biblical theology, interpretation, are all interpretational. The difference between science and religion is that science is more dogmatic. Disagreement isn't tolerated. That may be why unbelievers always complain about the lack of conformity in religion. I don't know though. It could just be that they are assholes. 

 

 Ok @SemmelweisReflex fair enough. Like I said. Before in this thread. Why would God wait until the past two centuries to pass down his "truth " to the JWs. all of those "christians" for almost 2000 years had it wrong? No sir! that is not the truth. I've given you references for you to look at. Then tell me how you feel. When you read those studies, and have read WHAT IVE READ. look ill admit. I've got a little religious trauma from it. I was basically a cult leader. How the goddamn fuck do you think I feel about preaching what I preached to them knowing what I know now. 

       I've read the bible. I know what it says. I lived what it says. I've been down that road. I need you to walk with me a little way down my road so we can relate with each other a little bit. You have no idea what I'm talking about because you won't read it. I think you may fear what you'll find. As I said to you in private message. We can't respect anything you say if you won't consider what we've seen. All I ask is for you to read it. Then tell me your take on it. Then we'll go from there. 

 

       Ya don't see athiest barging in the local kingdom hall and tell you how wrong you are for believing do ya? This is our church buddy. This is where we fellowship. Get to know us a little bit before ya try to school us. 

 

Thank you

 

DB

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

28 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Like I said I can give chapter and verse, but it would take time and there isn't any point if you really don't care. The JW's would agree with everything I said in the OP. I think. They change constantly. Like science. Science and theology, specifically Biblical theology, interpretation, are all interpretational. The difference between science and religion is that science is more dogmatic. Disagreement isn't tolerated. That may be why unbelievers always complain about the lack of conformity in religion. I don't know though. It could just be that they are assholes. 

 

Likewise if you will give me a suggested study for the JWs. I will read it. Does that sound fair?

 

I've never read into them and wouldn't mind understanding them a bit better myself.

 

Never ask someone to do anything you wouldn't do yourself. 

 

[alreadyGone]

6 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

It's language. How we use words. How their usage may change. What they mean. How they are applied. How they may differ due to geographical or societal barriers. Translation, transliteration. 

 

You don't have to look at this link if you aren't interested but it gives various definitions. That's usage, not necessarily meaning. Meanings and words change over time. Or not. At the end of the info given on the link it says "Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’." 

 

Translation is taking one word from one language and trying to match it with another word in another language. Sometimes those meanings, like mythologies, intermingle. Sometimes they are independent similarities based upon meaning. Fagg, for example (which, by the way, I'm) British, American, South Park; applications may differ based upon various reasons. They will also have similarities in their application. These change over time. Fagg. a homosexual, a cigarette, a stupid person, a poor person, a stick gatherer. "There's a fagg." "I'm a fagg." "Give me a fagg." "What a fagg." etc.

 

So, how do they use spirit? How did others use spirit? How does the Bible use spirit? How does the apostate church use spirit? How has it changed? How has it stayed the same? What variations? What similarities? What meanings? What is the etymology? 

 

None of which even remotely pertains to the question I asked.

I give up.

Discussion with you is like herding cats.

 

I suspect you of deliberate obfuscation.

I do not believe you to be sincere or honest.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Why wouldn't I?!

Exactly!  Because I have given you the exact same "proof" of my football-fucking monkey as you have given me for your almighty god.  So why would you believe in one but not the other?

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

None of which even remotely pertains to the question I asked.

I give up.

Discussion with you is like herding cats.

 

I suspect you of deliberate obfuscation.

I do not believe you to be sincere or honest.

 

 

Where is there evidence that any "spirit" exists in reality?

 

Your questions are low resolution. If you just want me to say there is no evidence of spirit then just ask. You are the one who is intellectually dishonest. The answer to the question of where there is any evidence that any spirit exists I have given in great detail because you haven't specified what you mean by spirit. You don't know what it is. You want me to give you evidence of something you don't understand? First I have to explain it to you but you fucking won't listen to me. 

 

Do you mean spirit in the apostate sense of the word which incorrectly confuses the spirit as the immortal soul of Greek philosophy? There is no evidence of it. 

 

Do you mean the spirit as the Bible most often uses the word spirit in Hebrew or Greek? Breath, wind, mental inclination? You don't need me to provide evidence of this because it is well established. 

 

Do you mean spirit as in the Bible's other use of the word spirit creatures? The Bible is the evidence. Duh! You won't accept that evidence. That's your problem. You have to depend upon the Bible because science can't test the existence of those spirit creatures. This means that you and I can't say that according to science spirit creatures don't exist. That is irrelevant because at one time science didn't know germs, whales or squid, existed. 

 

Evidence doesn't establish anything outside of your own observation. If a spirit creature appeared to you out of nowhere and announced itself as a spirit creature would you believe it or have yourself committed? Blame it on drugs, exhaustion, mental illness, a neurological disorder, an illusion or anything else? You won't accept evidence. That's no defense of your position. It seems to me that either you are intellectually lazy, obtuse, of disingenuous. You are asking for evidence that you won't accept. What you have to do is address the evidence I've provided after you have clarified exactly which spirit you are denying the existence of.

 

Any spirit, of any kind? God, angels, devils?

 

Another low resolution question. You don't know what these things are. You are like a kid who denies 1+1=2 because his only reference was ironical alternative. You think that's clever because I can't demonstrate to you what it is we are even talking about like the kid dismissing a demonstration as being coincidental. The Bible is the evidence for these things in the context of our discussion but you fail to appreciate that there are other perspectives. You don't know what a god, angel or devil is. You only see religion vs. science. The Bible isn't true evidence because God said it, but these things are not imaginary because you think science said it. 

 

What evidence is there of any "human spirit"?

 

[Sighs] Define, please? The apostate theology based upon Greek philosophy? The Biblical and practical meaning? Something else? 

 

What does "wind, breath, or mental inclination" have to do with anything?

 

 

I've explained it to you. Read it again. 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Exactly!  Because I have given you the exact same "proof" of my football-fucking monkey as you have given me for your almighty god.  So why would you believe in one but not the other?

 

Who cares? Why would they care? You think that I expect you to believe my evidence? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Who cares? Why would they care? You think that I expect you to believe my evidence? 

I have no idea what your expectations might be, nor do I care.  Expectations are nothing more than premeditated resentments.

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Talk to me. In your own words. I don't care about proof. You can't prove to me what you had for lunch. You can't prove to me God doesn't exist. I can't prove to you he does. You can't prove to me we evolved and I can't prove to you we were created. Get over it. It's nonsense. 

 

I already told you that we can toss the citation if you'd like. The point is that we as ex christians have learned to cite what we argue. Demonstrate with evidence. Apply logic. And so on. As to theistic belief and origins, correct. These are not proven by anyone. 

 

Now as to the logic as to what follows, I hold that it creates an agnostic scenario of "not knowing." To where the only honest theists or atheists are the agnostic theists and agnostic atheists who readily admit that they don't know for certain, but then believe or disbelieve regardless of the issue of not knowing with certainty. 

 

You're response? 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Who cares? Why would they care? You think that I expect you to believe my evidence? 

 

One might ask why are you here discussing / debating anything? What is your point? Maybe you can get to the point and bypass all of the confusion. 

[WalterP]

On 6/11/2021 at 6:45 PM, WalterP said:

 God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve. 

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence. 

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential. 

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done.  When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day.  So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3,  King James Version

 

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

 

 

The above portion of Semmelweis Reflex's opening post comes under the scope of Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 

 

None of the events described above were seen by human eyes.  Things not seen by human eyes are accepted as true and real by faith.  There exists no physical evidence to corroborate or authenticate them.  That is why faith is used by believers to understand how the worlds were framed (created) by god speaking them into existence.   According to faith, the things which human eyes do see (the physical world around us) were formed by unseen things.  Specifically, god.

 

The upshot of applying Hebrews to Semmelweis Reflex's introduction is simply this.  

 

Everything he writes about, everything he claims happened and everything he explains rests upon the foundation of his faith.  Not on facts.  Not on physical evidence.  Not on anything that can be verified, authenticated of confirmed from scientific investigation.  Not on the basis of any oral history and not on the basis of any eyewitness accounts.  No human saw the the events he believes in by faith.  And since the physical world which we can see and touch and examine was, according to scripture, made from unseen things, there is no possibility of ever using what we can see, touch and examine to discover if Semmelweis Reflex's belief are true.

 

This immediately flags up three questions.

 

 

1. 

Why should his faith-based understanding of prehistory be any more accurate than that of another Christian's faith-based understanding of the same period?

 

2.

Why should his Christian faith-based understanding be any more accurate than that of the faith-based understanding of a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew?

 

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bumped for David's attention.

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I already told you that we can toss the citation if you'd like. The point is that we as ex christians have learned to cite what we argue. Demonstrate with evidence. Apply logic. And so on. As to theistic belief and origins, correct. These are not proven by anyone. 

 

Now as to the logic as to what follows, I hold that it creates an agnostic scenario of "not knowing." To where the only honest theists or atheists are the agnostic theists and agnostic atheists who readily admit that they don't know for certain, but then believe or disbelieve regardless of the issue of not knowing with certainty. 

 

You're response? 

 

You can use citation in your own words. Don't expect me to read your links. Otherwise I agree with your response quoted above. 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

One might ask why are you here discussing / debating anything? What is your point? Maybe you can get to the point and bypass all of the confusion. 

 

I've expressed my motivations repeatedly and candidly. I enjoy religious discussion. To do that requires a certain degree of debate. Basically I'm interested in why people believe what they believe and I like to compare my beliefs with others. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I've expressed my motivations repeatedly and candidly. I enjoy religious discussion. To do that requires a certain degree of debate. Basically I'm interested in why people believe what they believe and I like to compare my beliefs with others. 

 

If you want to find out why we believe why we do now. Why aren't you looking at what we give you? That doesn't reflect a desire to know why. If you really wanted to know. You would. Sorry to Butt into yours and @Joshpantera thread . I will C my way out of your A and B convo now. 

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I've expressed my motivations repeatedly and candidly. I enjoy religious discussion. To do that requires a certain degree of debate. Basically I'm interested in why people believe what they believe and I like to compare my beliefs with others. 

 

But that's not the entire story, is it David?

 

If you were just interested in why people believe what they believe then you'd engage with them politely and courteously, treating them as equals.

 

The fact that you disparage others, mock them and insult them means that there's more going here on than you say.

 

If you just enjoyed religious discussion for its own sake then you'd confine yourself to just that, without the ad hominems.

 

But there's another agenda behind your stated one, isn't there?

 

I wonder what it could be?

 

?

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I've expressed my motivations repeatedly and candidly. I enjoy religious discussion. To do that requires a certain degree of debate. Basically I'm interested in why people believe what they believe and I like to compare my beliefs with others. 

 

Well, that's what we've been doing so far. It's been nothing but batting beliefs and disbelief at one another. So we should then take from the above that you're getting everything out of this visit that you've expected to get out of it? 

 

Is there more to any of this? After having spoken to everyone already? 

 

If so, what's more???