Prove to me.... (622)
MikeHD: The law was fulfilled once and for all by Jesus. And...
Come on now, you know this. It is basic bible. It is the law that kills the flesh. It is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ that resurrects us into a new life. A life free from the flesh and the works of the law. The law brings us to repentance, without which there is no salvation. That is its job. But that is all it can do. Jesus said...
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18
So when you refer to the Mosaic Law, do you refer to everything set up for the children of Israel in the desert? Do you refer to the Ten Commandments? How about the Talmud as referenced in the other thread? Or do you reference what Jesus was referring to when He spoke about the law...
"And He said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40
And what are the names of the women and children who were stoned? Or are you just assuming there was the stoning of innocent people? I know it is very difficult to wrap your head around, but how else does a God who is perfectly just, and perfect merciful, with a God complex supposed to act?
Did he just say God had a God complex?
He thinks He deserves our adoration and obedience? Who does He think He is…God? No, I am no prophet. And I don't know all things.
I just understand how it works.
Mike!Come on now, you know this. It is basic bible. It is the law that kills the flesh. It is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ that resurrects us into a new life. A life free from the flesh and the works of the law. The law brings us to repentance, without which there is no salvation. That is its job. But that is all it can do. Jesus said...
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18
So when you refer to the Mosaic Law, do you refer to everything set up for the children of Israel in the desert? Do you refer to the Ten Commandments? How about the Talmud as referenced in the other thread? Or do you reference what Jesus was referring to when He spoke about the law...
"And He said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40
And what are the names of the women and children who were stoned? Or are you just assuming there was the stoning of innocent people? I know it is very difficult to wrap your head around, but how else does a God who is perfectly just, and perfect merciful, with a God complex supposed to act?
Did he just say God had a God complex?
He thinks He deserves our adoration and obedience? Who does He think He is…God? No, I am no prophet. And I don't know all things.
I just understand how it works.
Proof
“Proof,” in the full sense, is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Introduction to Logic Leonard Peikoff,
lecture series (1976), Lecture 1.
“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech,
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Mike!
Proof
“Proof,” in the full sense, is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Introduction to Logic Leonard Peikoff,
lecture series (1976), Lecture 1.
“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,
Proof
“Proof,” in the full sense, is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Introduction to Logic Leonard Peikoff,
lecture series (1976), Lecture 1.
“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,
Sorry to do all this Pasting,but I do not have the Eloquence of those Writers!
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: The law was fulfilled once and for all by Jesus.
In other words, Yahweh required the blood sacrifice of his only son in order to make up for the horrible mistake that he had created known as "human." Gotcha. That doesn’t really address WHY god gave the Law to Moses to begin with.
In response to: "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were {aroused} by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." Romans 7:4-6
Interesting passage. Let’s see. Paul says the law is dead and no longer binding. But Jesus said that the law will be binding in its entirety "till heaven and earth pass away." It’s just another one of those contradictions I guess...
In response to: Come on now, you know this.
Yep sure do. Its one of the more famous contradictions in fact.
In response to: So when you refer to the Mosaic Law, do you refer to everything set up for the children of Israel in the desert?
I refer to the law handed down to Moses by god.
In response to: Or do you reference what Jesus was referring to when He spoke about the law...
Its one in the same.
In response to: "And He said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40
But is the Law still binding? The bible conflicts itself on this point several times. Here is one I could locate.
Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
In response to: And what are the names of the women and children who were stoned?
As noted already, we know from a cultural anthropological stand point that stoning occurred in the Middle East as it was sanctified by God. It also still takes place even to this day and normally it is perpetrated in public. It is also done to women very often. Amnesty International went into detail on it.
In response to: Or are you just assuming there was the stoning of innocent people?
No not that all. One of the Mosaic Laws stated that a woman who is determined not to be a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned to death if this claim can be substantiated.
In response to: I know it is very difficult to wrap your head around, but how else does a God who is perfectly just, and perfect merciful, with a God complex supposed to act?
He can start off by not condemning innocent humans to death by stoning. That’s just my opinion however. You seem to disagree.
In response to: Did he just say God had a God complex?
Yeah that’s pretty bad Mike.
In response to: He thinks He deserves our adoration and obedience?
No, he DEMANDS our adoration and obedience or else he calls for our murder.
In response to: No, I am no prophet. And I don't know all things.
Gee, really?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Mike!
Proof
“Proof,” in the full sense, is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Introduction to Logic Leonard Peikoff,
lecture series (1976), Lecture 1.
“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,
Proof
“Proof,” in the full sense, is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Introduction to Logic Leonard Peikoff,
lecture series (1976), Lecture 1.
“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,
Faith Conrad, have faith.
Without faith, it is impossible. Today we always demand proof like we deserve it. Reminds me of something I read...
"But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and {yet} no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;'" Matthew 12:39
I find it amusing that all Christians are accused of being arrogant, but we are not the ones, the finite ones, demanding proof from an infinite God.
Jesus loves me, and that is all I need to know right now.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Mercedes1: I need to go to the loo
Is that the great man above calling?
Is that the great man above calling?
Yes Mercedes, the great man Drewski is here. He'll gladly wait for your return from the loo. He won't let you down
------ This thread is Archived ------
Shedman01: Prove to me... God does not exist.
The logic that says your mythology is false until proven true is the same logic that built your computer also keeps you innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim or hypothesizing something, and that's yourself. You are the one saying something exists; those who refute it are not making any claims.
Being dishonest is not going to lend you credibility; dishonesty will only lose it. Worse still is your inability to grasp that admitting you have to prove your mythology does not prevent you from believing in it.
You're entitled to have your religion, and no one is stopping you from having it - or are you again being dishonest, and claiming someone is doing just that?
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: Faith Conrad, have faith.
Without faith, it is impossible. Today we always demand proof like we deserve it. Reminds me of something I read..."But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and {yet} no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;'" Matthew 12:39 I find it amusing that all Christians are accused of being arrogant, but we are not the ones, the finite ones, demanding proof from an infinite God.
Jesus loves me, and that is all I need to know right now.
I am looking for neither Faith nor a Sign!Without faith, it is impossible. Today we always demand proof like we deserve it. Reminds me of something I read..."But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and {yet} no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;'" Matthew 12:39 I find it amusing that all Christians are accused of being arrogant, but we are not the ones, the finite ones, demanding proof from an infinite God.
Jesus loves me, and that is all I need to know right now.
I got what I was looking for,and that is MINE,ALL MINE!
....and you still claim Knowledge without Evidence!“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.A.R.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Sorry to do all this Pasting,but I do not have the Eloquence of those Writers!
...or the intelligence to have come up with the idea?
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: It is your decision to choose to hate God. You will stand before Him without excuse, because all of your objections will melt away at the truth that you searched high and low to create those objections out of your purposeful misunderstanding of the word of God. God always leaves the choice to us.
Really? Did we have a choice about being intrinsically sinful (and if we aren't inherently sinful, why do we need anyone's forgiveness)?
------ This thread is Archived ------
galaxy15: ...or the intelligence to have come up with the idea?
Sad Little Twit!
------ This thread is Archived ------
hornswoggled: The logic that says your mythology is false until proven true is the same logic that built your computer also keeps you innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim or hypothesizing something, and that's yourself. You are the one saying something exists; those who refute it are not making any claims.
Being dishonest is not going to lend you credibility; dishonesty will only lose it. Worse still is your inability to grasp that admitting you have to prove your mythology does not prevent you from believing in it.
You're entitled to have your religion, and no one is stopping you from having it - or are you again being dishonest, and claiming someone is doing just that?
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim or hypothesizing something, and that's yourself. You are the one saying something exists; those who refute it are not making any claims.
Being dishonest is not going to lend you credibility; dishonesty will only lose it. Worse still is your inability to grasp that admitting you have to prove your mythology does not prevent you from believing in it.
You're entitled to have your religion, and no one is stopping you from having it - or are you again being dishonest, and claiming someone is doing just that?
Exactly!
------ This thread is Archived ------
galaxy15: ...or the intelligence to have come up with the idea?
Yep,if sticking meaningless Words together is the Measure,you're definitely a Genius without Substance!------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: I am looking for neither Faith nor a Sign!
I got what I was looking for,and that is MINE,ALL MINE! ....and you still claim Knowledge without Evidence!“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.A.R.
I got what I was looking for,and that is MINE,ALL MINE! ....and you still claim Knowledge without Evidence!“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.A.R.
You have it all figured out, so what are you hopping to fine on CS?
------ This thread is Archived ------
COSMICDUST: You have it all figured out, so what are you hopping to fine on CS?
Damn,are they coming out the Woodwork these days.------ This thread is Archived ------
galaxy15: Is that all you could come up with? Resorting to ridicule and name calling?
You are revealing more and more of an ugly nature, darlin'.
You are revealing more and more of an ugly nature, darlin'.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: I am looking for neither Faith nor a Sign!
I got what I was looking for,and that is MINE,ALL MINE! ....and you still claim Knowledge without Evidence!“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.A.R.
I got what I was looking for,and that is MINE,ALL MINE! ....and you still claim Knowledge without Evidence!“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.A.R.
You seem fond of quoting guys you admire. Perhaps those with "Piled high and Deep" behind their names (PhD).
But who am I to talk. You know my propensity for pasting my guys in here all the time.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galaxy15: Is that all you could come up with? Resorting to ridicule and name calling?
You are revealing more and more of an ugly nature, darlin'.
I belive you're on the wrong Site!You are revealing more and more of an ugly nature, darlin'.
Darlin'?
------ This thread is Archived ------
rodolpho: So first i will give you my definition of god and later i will prove it, first simmer on the definition...
God is in everything
God made everything
God has no end or beginning
God has intelligence
God is order
God is the greatest
So if you can agree on this definition proof will come later.
I want people to think of the statement i made and not just give it, íts to easy anyway.
Remember the hardest problems need the most simple solutions.
I'm of cookin
c u later.
God is in everything
God made everything
God has no end or beginning
God has intelligence
God is order
God is the greatest
So if you can agree on this definition proof will come later.
I want people to think of the statement i made and not just give it, íts to easy anyway.
Remember the hardest problems need the most simple solutions.
I'm of cookin
c u later.
So here's your proof mikey hope you like it.In my definition wich is relevant for all known one god religions this stands firm without any compensation.
All laws are man made except the laws of nature.Nature is god, nature is intelligent, nature is order in chaos.Don't know why people need a puppet called God or Allah or Jahwe.Don't know why the puppet is called Him,oh yeah I do, that was because of the male chauvinist pigs who invented this false god to kill the matriarch society.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Common Issues with the BMW X1
other can see but not you
How far is too far?
your personality
rarotonga
Salami, Salami, Baloney
1830's Music
Icebergs Still Around
everything is changing
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
That's a very spatial analogy at best and does not address the Mosaic Law and stoning women and children to death at all.
I am quoting direct passages from the bible? Are you claiming that the Mosaic Law does not exist now?
You might want to try explaining that to all of the men, women and children that were stoned to death under god's law.
Except those children that took the lord's name in vain and were commanded to be stoned to death by god's law. Remember, I’m only stoning you to death because I love you so.
Are you telling me you are a prophet Mike?
The law was fulfilled once and for all by Jesus. And...
"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were {aroused} by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." Romans 7:4-6
Come on now, you know this. It is basic bible. It is the law that kills the flesh. It is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ that resurrects us into a new life. A life free from the flesh and the works of the law. The law brings us to repentance, without which there is no salvation. That is its job. But that is all it can do. Jesus said...
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18
So when you refer to the Mosaic Law, do you refer to everything set up for the children of Israel in the desert? Do you refer to the Ten Commandments? How about the Talmud as referenced in the other thread? Or do you reference what Jesus was referring to when He spoke about the law...
"And He said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40
And what are the names of the women and children who were stoned? Or are you just assuming there was the stoning of innocent people? I know it is very difficult to wrap your head around, but how else does a God who is perfectly just, and perfect merciful, with a God complex supposed to act?
Did he just say God had a God complex?
He thinks He deserves our adoration and obedience? Who does He think He is…
God?
No, I am no prophet. And I don't know all things.
I just understand how it works.