login
Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide (Page 7)
-
No new posts
|
  2005-12-12 6:28 PM in reply to: #301937 |
 Subject: ...This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2005-12-12 6:42 PM in reply to: #304125 |
Elite 2458    Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide Lara - 2005-12-12 3:28 PM totally OFF TOPIC.. and INAPPROPRIATE for a serious religous discussion.. but does anybody else have this song in their head from this thread?? Rollin' Rollin' Rollin' no? you're wierd. |
| 2005-12-12 6:48 PM in reply to: #304132 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2005-12-12 9:26 PM in reply to: #304124 |
Champion 8936   | Subject: RE: Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide I want proof of God, not proof of a man's existance. People cloud the issue here often. But look at it from my point of view, do you think that he has convincingly shown that he's a God or the son of a God? Why leave it to question? I really, REALLY shouldn't get involved in this, but I have to at least address this. You want definitive proof. You're not gonna get it. Why leave it to question? Because we believe that God gave us free will and mandating that we all believe in something by virtue of absolute proof is taking away that free will to choose what we believe. I doubt it's an answer that will suffice for you, but it's an answer. |
| 2005-12-12 9:37 PM in reply to: #304222 |
| Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide DerekL - 2005-12-12 10:26 PM Very well said.I want proof of God, not proof of a man's existance. People cloud the issue here often. But look at it from my point of view, do you think that he has convincingly shown that he's a God or the son of a God? Why leave it to question? I really, REALLY shouldn't get involved in this, but I have to at least address this. You want definitive proof. You're not gonna get it. Why leave it to question? Because we believe that God gave us free will and mandating that we all believe in something by virtue of absolute proof is taking away that free will to choose what we believe. I doubt it's an answer that will suffice for you, but it's an answer. |
| 2005-12-12 9:37 PM in reply to: #304124 |
| Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide Ahh, now we get to the heart of the matter. Any form of proof would work that is grand in scale. In this day of mass media, I could accept quite a bit. I could probably start a whole thread on this one. A couple of thing: 1) I have delated #1, as it came off as a personal attack. It did nothing to further the debate. 2) Regarding proof. I work on issues of proof on a daily basis. As the major component of my job I am called upon to prove matters on various levels. Some of these proof issues are literally matters of life and death for those involved. The difference is that when I start to do my job, I know what the standard of proof is. This standard is constant, it does not change based upon the severity of the punishment or the perceived seriousness of the infraction. There is no changing of the standard of proof because of the topic at hand. The same standard of proof exists for the theft of a piece of gum as for a first degree murder. As is often the case, with those that require proof, you have failed to say what proof you would require, or even what standard of proof you would apply. Your entire statement regarding the standard of proof is "Any form of proof would work that is grand in scale. In this day of mass media, I could accept quite a bit." This does little to advance the debate. It does little for me, as the individual with the burden of proof to put me on notice as to what standard is applicable. 3) Why does the standard change when one attempts to prove the peoples, places and events of the Bible occurred? Why is your statement "It's because the claim is so bold. Anytime you say "God was here" you're gonna get some kickback." a valid one. (I conceed that you did not indicate that you feel that this is a valid situation, but you also did not disavow this increased standard. I just don't know.) Biblical archeology is filled with cases in which sound archeological techniques have been used and followed and archeological evidence has been gathered but findings and conclusions have been rebucked simply because the conclusions were of a biblical nature. However smaller quantums of evidence have been used to validate non-biblical claims. Why is the standard different to prove the existance of Troy than to prove the existance of the Holy of Holies? 4) Perhaps this statement troubles me the most: "Say you. I don't take the words of the Bible as truth" So Pontius Pilate was not the prefect of Judea? John of Patmos was not a real person? Or is just the parts of the Bible that you don't like that you don't accept? Is it just the portions of the Bible dealing with issues of devinity? Certainly you don't mean that anything in the Bible is not true? Over and over again places of the Bible that have previously thought to be agorical have been found through archeology. Ex: The sacking of the Temple, reliefs have recently been found on a column in the Asyrrian Kingdom that depict that rulers army carrying away a large minora and other spoils of war. An extra-biblical corroboration of a biblical story. Previously thought as just a story, they have now found proof from the conquering nation of the treasures of the Temple being carried away. Ex2: For Decades skeptics scoffed at the idea of King David, the suggestion was that if such a powerful King existed why was there no references outside of the Bible to him. In 2002 a stone tablet was found which included a specific reference to King david and the Tribe of David. Ex3: In 2004 archeologist uncovered a pool that was in the right area, was at the correct strato,. depth to place the pool at Jesus' time to be the Siloam Pool. Ex 4: Recent archeological digs have found numerous I'melekh handles in an area that is precisley where Hebron should be. These finds are important as the finds of these kingly handles indicates that Hebron was a royal seat. I'm not making a personal attack, I just dont understand what is meant by the statement. It is curious to me. In order to meaningfully debate the point I would need a clearer understanding of what you mean by that. My assumption is that you do not mean that you disavow anything simply because it is contained in the Bible? I think we would both agree that would be a tenuous position. So how do you descern that Joseph of Aremathia a wealthy Jewish leader wasn't a follower of Christ, but Potnitas Pilote was the prefect of Judea? Where is it that you draw the line? What do you include and can at least accept and what is that you can't? 5) How do you propose to prove the existance of any ancient people, individual, or place. I understand your arguement about George Washington, but it may not be as clear or be as apt when talking about ancient peoples, or places. If you are truely interested in a debate regarding issues of proof of the Bible, and this isn't simply a debate for debates sake I suggest you read a book entitled "The case for Christ" I have a copy I'd even be willing to send it to you on my dime. Read it, tell me what you think, underline it, rip it apart, research the points, make counter points. That's my offer to you. At the very least you get a free book, use it as a coaster for all I care. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK