Theological Ramblings.

I "nitpick" erroneous statements from all sides, homie. You're just too busy trying to put a respectable spin on the bullpen of radical right mouthbreathers. When was the last time you called anyone you consider conservative out on ANYTHING?

And now you are directly attacking me saying you are concerned about my Mental state!

You see why your incredulous statement that you had Truth may have irked someone now, because you now state anyone believing you had actual evidence must be insane, but you still used the word evidence...

Please pick a stance on this argument and stick to it.

When you figure out what all the connotations are behind the word "evidence" instead of your extremely narrow view of it, I'll pick this conversation up with you again.

No you don't, but you at least have a point in your last statement. Almost always when a conservative says something truly stupid in P&R, they get slaughtered. I wouldn't let them get away with it otherwise. It's always more fun when people on the same side of most issues start attacking each other. Jet's good for that at times.

I took the literal use as you used it in a manner that made it seem Literal.

Trying to make your self seem more intelligent than myself when I personally believe you are not (Notice I did not use the word proof or evidence where I had none, take notes) in a vain attempt to make it seem as though I missed your point entirely.

You should probably learn how to address your opinion as opinion and not as fact when you have none and don't seem to use the word in a manner that people can understand as you, as I stated earlier with your 1 line response, provided no insight into how you though / came up with your usage of the word Evidence.

Due to the incredibly low amount of anything to your initial post it could have been conceived that you in fact believed you had physical evidence, and that we believed you to be "wrong" or one of those "Mouthbreathers" who read something in a newspaper and believed it to be gospel.

Now to Really Nitpick..



The Oxford Definition of the word you used.

Wikipedia is not a valid site, Oxford however is. You should have been informed of this when handing in papers at University, again further weakening your stance and argument that your post was valid.

However you used it as a Noun, so


"Authentication" as a Synonym, which would be the first and most accurate way to describe how 99.99% of people would refer to to the word evidence.

I await your rebuttal ~ because so far your evidence has been lacking.

Edit: You will notice the antonym "Disprove" you can't use fictional sources as evidence to disprove something, especially in a book that contradicts itself everywhere.

If you don't see me call out "liberals" it's because you're choosing not to see it. Or it's just because there is far more nonsense that needs to be called out coming from one side than the other. I see you twist yourself into knots to agree with some of the most ridiculous crap ever written and you call me out as a "liberal" because I take a libertarian approach to social policies. Face it, you're just as guilty as anyone you accuse of being a partisan hack.

Did you skip the other Oxford definition on purpose?

"1.2 Signs; indications:"


Just out of curiosity, you're a devout Catholic that considers the Bible to be fictional? Interesting.


Like?

Actually I did not skip them on purpose, I merely copied what I saw ~

And no one in the right mind can read the bible and see "eye for an Eye" and "Turn the other cheek" and not call it a contradiction.

You can believe in the Ideology of something but not a story book made god knows when to force people in slavery and to "work hard" to feed the rich and playcate them into believing they will go to Heaven for not stealing the Masters Wife.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your opinion doesn't bother me, though. To each their own.

It's basically Marxism (Sociological thinker), Weber agreed with him on many things. But some people even consider the creation of the Bible / Christianity as "functional", another school of thought, where the function was to enslave people in an "Ideology" of if you do this badly against the will of some dude who made a book, you will burn for all eternity in hell.

I prefer to believe in what it stands for, and not whether it's supposed to be some historical account of whether ***actually happened.

I.E I believe in the ritual of bread and wine etc to commerate a person we "believe" to be the son of god who we "believe" did great things. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, the fact is we aspire to be like that person was, someone who stuck to their morals and did what they believed was right even in direct conflict with the main religion, so even if my view isn't supported by the most religious of Zealots with Catholicism it's irrelevant as the "teachings and not gospel truths" this is the probably the point people should take from it, is that we are Taught to do Good, and the "storys" are guides for a time that is not relevant to now.

I.E the whole respect thy neighbour thing I agree with but, the whole "And Bartholmu shall burn for all eternity because he didn't work his hands to the bones etc" or because he didn't bend over and let some slave master (because there were slaves when this was Bible / Religion was founded) to allow someone who was given "Divine Priveldge" to write a book with his view / slant on it.

It's very much like comparing it to the idea that History is Written by the Victorious, in this case it was written by those who had money / power and an education in a time where education would probably not have existed to those without money

It's the Core points that I believe in, the Bible itself is mostly Horseshit imo.

Real discussion over real things?

As opposed to a fake discussion over fairy tales?

This is a thread about theological ramblings, you almost certainly won't find what you are looking for.

Set your expectations low this thread delivers !

Your point is immaterial, no mater how you define evidence. Reread the bolded part.

The thread is supposed to revolve around theology, not the definition of "evidence".

I think we need a global warming ramblings thread it is basically a bunch of fake scientists speculating about global warming.

Give enough money to enough scientists and eventually they'll agree on anything.

As long as everyone "believes" in global warming it is real.

Global warming is a profitable religion that needs more followers.

The good people at Toyota are counting on you to save the world with your hybrid.

Also petition to change thread to Atheists annoying everyone.

Yes we are tolerant as long as you agree with us.

But I'm a theist. I can still be annoying though.

We can all be annoying together?

We could all nitpick the light saber in the new Star Wars trailer...that movie is going to be terrible.

I'm pretty sure we've got that one covered quite well already.

I'm too busy having my run on sentences being nit picked to properly analyze if God exist and why.

God will forgive me if I happen to make a grammatical error however my English teacher will not !

Yay, it's good to be back to the actual point being discussed. So what you're saying is that Jesus had to have a human father to be the Messiah? Interesting thought, but if you want to be picky, look at the ancient Israelite laws regarding adoption and inheritances.

Either that or King David was god.

You got a Grave site that Proves this (Here we go again...)

I've got 99 problems, but a grave isn't one.

It seems strange that one of the qualifications for being the messiah would hinge on legal technicalities.

/chuckle

Here's some theological ramblings:

Strike down my notions, ideas, and faith/evidence, and I shall become more annoying than you could ever possibly imagine!

You forget how many Jewish lawyers there are.

Also one way to translate rabbi into English is "interpreter of God's laws" or, God's lawyer.