| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
 |
|
Rob - LOL, even atheists can make correct statements, aand his about
you is true.
Am I aupposed to "ally" myself with you, an alleged Christian, who
writes like a nazi ?
I think not. LE |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:01 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
CB - Yes, I will in time respond to him.
I emphasize however, that using his criteria, most ancient people that
we assume existed, do not, because the documentation for their existence
are a few copies of material that has long since vanished, with the
copies being made, in the case of Socrates, almost a thousand years
after he supposedly lived.
This material for the existence of Socrates is about 3% of the
documentation for Christ, with the extant material for Christ being
written within 150 to 200 years of his life.
If Christ is a myth, then very certainly Socrates is a myth, correct? LE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dirk Hartog
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
| Quote: | That which is written is the inspired Word of God, and the inspired Word of
God is indeed absolute proof of God's existence.
|
Circular. "The bible is the word of god because . . . because the
bible says so."
If that's all the reasons you've got, then you don't have any real
reason. You don't have reasons, you have superstitions.
Dirk Hartog |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:53:44 -0700 (MST), shmogie1@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards)
wrote:
| Quote: | Rob - LOL, even atheists can make correct statements, aand his about
you is true.
Am I aupposed to "ally" myself with you, an alleged Christian, who
writes like a nazi ?
I think not. LE
|
You flatter yourself to think you even could.
Rob |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dirk Hartog
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Rob <rob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<no2skvcgok7qthset6har0oh6culq4c9f5@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | On 28 Aug 2003 05:26:26 -0700, thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote:
That which is written is the inspired Word of God, and the inspired Word of
Circular. "The bible is the word of god because . . . because the
bible says so."
Your statement is erroneously constructed. The Word of God is the Word of God
because the Word of God is the Word of God. Iron is iron because iron is iron.
Gold is gold because gold is gold. Etcetera.
If that's all the reasons you've got, then you don't have any real
reason. You don't have reasons, you have superstitions.
You already made clear you deny the Word of God is the Word of God, so are you
now trying to convince me or yourself?
|
"the inspired (by God) Word of God is indeed absolute proof of God's existence"
We know God exists because . . . because God's book says so. Circular.
Dirk Hartog
| Quote: | God is indeed absolute proof of God's existence.
Circular. "The bible is the word of god because . . . because the
bible says so."
Your statement is erroneously constructed. The Word of God is the Word of God
because the Word of God is the Word of God. Iron is iron because iron is iron.
Gold is gold because gold is gold. Etcetera.
If that's all the reasons you've got, then you don't have any real
reason. You don't have reasons, you have superstitions.
You already made clear you deny the Word of God is the Word of God, so are you
now trying to convince me or yourself?
Rob |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:18 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Paul - Yes it is interesting.
The criteria seems to be that if the person in question had nothing to
do with Christianity, then there is ample proof to establish that he
existed.
If the person was Christ, or a very early follower, there can never be
enough proof to establish that he existed.
Do ya think some unscrupulous crooks a few hundred years ago made up the
Iliad and Odeyssy, and their author, to fool all the "simple people" ?
LE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
On 28 Aug 2003 13:54:04 -0700, thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote:
| Quote: | Rob <rob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<no2skvcgok7qthset6har0oh6culq4c9f5@4ax.com>...
On 28 Aug 2003 05:26:26 -0700, thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote:
That which is written is the inspired Word of God, and the inspired Word of
Circular. "The bible is the word of god because . . . because the
bible says so."
Your statement is erroneously constructed. The Word of God is the Word of God
because the Word of God is the Word of God. Iron is iron because iron is iron.
Gold is gold because gold is gold. Etcetera.
If that's all the reasons you've got, then you don't have any real
reason. You don't have reasons, you have superstitions.
You already made clear you deny the Word of God is the Word of God, so are you
now trying to convince me or yourself?
"the inspired (by God) Word of God is indeed absolute proof of God's existence"
We know God exists because . . . because God's book says so. Circular.
|
Your paraphrase doesn't match what I said. First, the inspired Word of God
is not a book. Second, the identity of "the inspired Word of God" and the
identity of "the Word of God" are one and the same thing - not different things
as you have erroneously concluded.
Rob |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:13 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Lamarr,
Using these standards we can almost certainly conclude that Homer did not
exist yet no one goes about making such claims. I wonder why?
Paul
"Lamarr Edwards" <shmogie1@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8959-3F4E1946-22@storefull-2378.public.lawson.webtv.net...
| Quote: | CB - Yes, I will in time respond to him.
I emphasize however, that using his criteria, most ancient people that
we assume existed, do not, because the documentation for their existence
are a few copies of material that has long since vanished, with the
copies being made, in the case of Socrates, almost a thousand years
after he supposedly lived.
This material for the existence of Socrates is about 3% of the
documentation for Christ, with the extant material for Christ being
written within 150 to 200 years of his life.
If Christ is a myth, then very certainly Socrates is a myth, correct? LE
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alan M
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:19 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Paul
Importance comes into it. I can't prove I went to the shop today but it's
unimportant. Homer is relatively unimportant compared to Christ. Authors
tend to change their name in any case. It's safe to say the literature
attributed to Homer was written by someone. Whether they were called Homer
or not probably doesn't matter too much.
"Paul" <paul@tooley.com> wrote in message
news:dd240f07570249f636b29effe115d9b1@news.teranews.com...
| Quote: | Lamarr,
Using these standards we can almost certainly conclude that Homer did not
exist yet no one goes about making such claims. I wonder why?
Paul
"Lamarr Edwards" <shmogie1@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8959-3F4E1946-22@storefull-2378.public.lawson.webtv.net...
CB - Yes, I will in time respond to him.
I emphasize however, that using his criteria, most ancient people that
we assume existed, do not, because the documentation for their existence
are a few copies of material that has long since vanished, with the
copies being made, in the case of Socrates, almost a thousand years
after he supposedly lived.
This material for the existence of Socrates is about 3% of the
documentation for Christ, with the extant material for Christ being
written within 150 to 200 years of his life.
If Christ is a myth, then very certainly Socrates is a myth, correct? LE
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Rob - You have changed your tune, LOL.
When I argued that in and of itself the Bible was not absolute proof of
the Christ, but it, coupled with faith, became the absolute proof of the
Christ, you called me names, and besmirched my faith.
And here you are, makng the same argument, NOTHING is absolute with
you, is it ? LE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2003 04:57:04 -0700, thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote:
| Quote: | , the identity of "the inspired Word of God" and the
identity of "the Word of God" are one and the same thing - not different things
as you have erroneously concluded.
That is the thinn to be proved. And your "proof" is circular.
|
The Word of God in and of itself, is proof of what it is. But the proof
can ONLY be recognized by FAITH.
Rob |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:22 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Rob - What a crock. You are really slipping and sliding now.
First off, testimony in court is subject to a variety of rules to be
admissable, but I don't need to explore that to prove that your entire
argument with its personally condemning posts was a straw man that you
carefully constructed, then lit on fire.
My argument was that the Bible, and its revalation of Christ was not
absolute proof that Christ was who he said he was, or even existed.
Further, I stated that by study, reason, prayer,and objectivity one
would lead by the Spirit, which would convict the individual by faith of
the certainty of the Bible and Christ.
You simply stated that the proof was unequivocal, and that the reason
people didn't accept it was because they chose to turn away from that
which was patently obvious and totally proven.
Now Robbie, we see you backtracking and talking about faith in the
equation, something you went far out of your way to scoff at.
You have no convictions, you don't know what you believe, you rarely
know what you are saying, and the English language is like Lithuanian to
you.
Everytime you venture out of robland, it is only a matter of time till
your brain is proven to still be in your fantasy world. LE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Rob - Duh, proof is evaluated, and accepted or rejected by whoever does
the evaluation.
Absolute proof, must be judged absolute proof by whomever is doing the
judging.
Your absolute proof, is the next guy's myth, if he does not have the
faith to believe it is absolute.
Your strawman still burns, and you still don't know what you are talking
about. LE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lamarr Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Rob - Absolute proof cannot be invisible to anyone, because it is
absolute !
So then, tell me, how is the Bible absolute proof of the existence of
Christ, as you so nastily maintained ? LE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dirk Hartog
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:01 am Post subject: Re: Is God omni-potent? |
|
|
Rob <rob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bquukvo3eojnselp4nucgepo5kare5a0ab@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | On 29 Aug 2003 04:57:04 -0700, thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote:
, the identity of "the inspired Word of God" and the
identity of "the Word of God" are one and the same thing - not different things
as you have erroneously concluded.
That is the thinn to be proved. And your "proof" is circular.
The Word of God in and of itself, is proof of what it is. But the proof
can ONLY be recognized by FAITH.
Rob
|
"Proof by faith" is an oxymoron. You don't have reasons, you have superstitions.
Dirk Hartog |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
