prove to me that god is real
- Thread starter dansufc
- Start date
John Mark E
Registered Senior Member
No, there was no preaching involved. It was merely showing that your initial arguement concerning the smaller section of this passage was completely backward.
There was never anything to interpret. It was using rather straight-forward language.
Then why say it?
Oh, so then you have proof that these places do not exist! Because according to the arguements of others on this forum:
yet this was answered, stating:
So then, aparantly you have verifyable evidence that these places do not exist. Please share. Otherwise, do not make such bold presumptions.
Then you are changing the words of the passage. It CLEARLY states that the worship of the sun is an abomination.
What we have is a contradiction in claims. You do not believe it, yet you READ INTO IT what you believe, which you do not believe, which is completely contradictory to what is actually written.
I have read the full chapter...a few times, at least. One dramatic mis-quote, which you have made is the continued insistence that "son-of-man", in this passage is referring to God. To one who is actually reading the chapter, and even the rest of this particular book, would note that this is being used as a title for Ezekiel, BY God Himself.
This phrase was not mentioned until much later. This name for God was not a founding principle. As such, it would not have been related to this "astrological circle" at the beginning.
No, it does not. It only means that we have someone here who has their beliefs, solely by faith. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Riiiiiight "out of context" again huh!
AS if the bible is straight forward language, if that was so, there wouldn't be so many f*cking interpretations!
It's an expresion.
And were the hell is yours that it does?
Been looking in the mirror lately? LOL..As if you had anything else to prove your fantasy other than "faith" Idiot!
Godless
John Mark E
Registered Senior Member
I am sorry...did I say that the original posting was out of context? No, actually I think I said that the "interpretation" given by certain others was completely backward. The rest of the chapter was given to give evidence to this claim.Godless said:
Perhaps because so many people try to take the words which are written, and try to make them mean something else??? Like has been done here?
Which came from...where, do you suppose?
Because of faith, I do not need anything more to prove what I believe.
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Researching beyond that is done for fun.
Last edited:
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill."
H.L. Mencken
Blind Faith
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40015
nothing more really need be said.
H.L. Mencken
Blind Faith
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40015
nothing more really need be said.
Ah yes H.L. Mencken. I love his quotes!
Astronomers and physicists, dealing habitually with objects and
quantities far beyond the reach of the senses, even with the aid of the
most powerful aids that ingenuity has been able to devise, tend almost
inevitably to fall into the ways of thinking of men dealing with objects
and quantities that do not exist at all, e.g., theologians and
metaphysicians. Thus their speculations tend almost inevitably to
depart from the field of true science, which is that of precise
observation, and to become mere soaring in the empyrean. The process
works backward, too. That is to say, their reports of what they pretend
actually to _see_ are often very unreliable. It is thus no wonder that,
of all men of science, they are the most given to flirting with theology.
Nor is it remarkable that, in the popular belief, most astronomers end
by losing their minds.
But my favorite by far:
My private prejudices are innumerable, and often idiotic.
Astronomers and physicists, dealing habitually with objects and
quantities far beyond the reach of the senses, even with the aid of the
most powerful aids that ingenuity has been able to devise, tend almost
inevitably to fall into the ways of thinking of men dealing with objects
and quantities that do not exist at all, e.g., theologians and
metaphysicians. Thus their speculations tend almost inevitably to
depart from the field of true science, which is that of precise
observation, and to become mere soaring in the empyrean. The process
works backward, too. That is to say, their reports of what they pretend
actually to _see_ are often very unreliable. It is thus no wonder that,
of all men of science, they are the most given to flirting with theology.
Nor is it remarkable that, in the popular belief, most astronomers end
by losing their minds.
But my favorite by far:
My private prejudices are innumerable, and often idiotic.
John Mark E
Registered Senior Member
No, not much does need to be said, considering that the thread ended back in 2004, with the last statement being made by one of the two biggest defenders of faith on that thread: Jenyar. Cyperium also made some good points.geeser said: