You claim that God does not exist.

Did you live in SF or did you die in SF?

 

Did I die in SF?

If I died in SF, how could I be posting this now?

 

Avoid the first question therefore you acquiesce to the affirmative of that question.

 

"1/10. Predictable and uninspired." - Trolling times.

 

Meaningless drivel on your part.

 

Meaningless drivel on your part.

Die

Tell Incorporeal, if I died in SF, how can I be posting this?

PS: as I have stated many times, I have not resided (lived) in San Francisco.

 

And I am saying that you are telling a lie. Your FB account shows that you have photos of you at SF.

 

There's photos of me bungee jumping. That doesnt mean my place of residence is suspended 200 feet in the air.

 

No! But it does show that you were "living" at the location where you were bungee jumping.

 

The problem with the God haters is they want proof they can see or touch. They want God to appear in the physical realm and say, "Here I am." It doesn't work like that though as God just may not jump when they say jump. But, where is the burden of proof? With whom does it lay? Atheists and God haters have not proven nothing exists. They have not proven there is no higher power. Prove God's not there. Should I have to prove electricity is not there or should someone have to prove it is? We can't see it. We can only see manifestations of it and the result of it working. Speaking of which, as I can't show you a photograph of God, I'll write about a manifestation of His work.

I was stationed in Germany with the army from 1988 to 1990. My wife and I hung out with several friends, most of which were in our Bible Study group. Chuck, a sergeant in the unit, was one of our best friends. I remember, it seemed, almost every day he was talking to a female in our unit named Terri. Terri was a Satan worshiper and always dressed in Gothic clothes, black lip stick, jet black hair, white face paint, etc, when she was off duty. Her language was always hateful and vile. Yet, she seemed drawn to Chuck and several of us and didn't mind engaging in discussions and debates about religion. She kept it somewhat civil and was fairly respectful, although the mention of Christ was often cause fidgeting or a twisted look on her face like she was getting angry or uncomfortable.

Any time any of us saw Terri, we would say hi to her. There were times she saw us first and would go out of her way to say hi. Her interest in talking about religion continued, but she insisted she was in the right and Satan would be the victor when everything was said and done. Yet, we all began to see a change. A lot of her vile language began to slowly melt away over time and there were acts of kindness, but not a complete 180 degree change. For example, in order to respond to an attack on the base, several people had to be on "lock in" duty after hours and they weren't allowed to drink. They could go anywhere on base, but had to sign out on the board at the desk anytime they left. They were not allowed to leave base for any reason. We drew this duty every so often and usually at the end of a long work day, so as we were allowed to do stuff, we weren't allowed to go home if we lived off base. Again, this as to ensure there were enough present and sober to respond to an alert or attack. People often tried to give away their lock in, but it was hard to do so as it was very undesirable.

One time I had lock in and my wife was 8 and one half months pregnant. We were so nervous she would go into labor at home and I would be stuck on base all evening and through the night. She was really upset and emotional. I assured her everything would be alright and she took a cab to our apartment. About an hour later, someone said I had a phone call at the desk. I thought it was my wife. I nervously went to the desk and took the call. It was Terri. She said, "Do you seriously have lock in?" I told her I did. She said, "Even though **** (my wife) is pregnant and about to give birth any day?" I told her I couldn't find anyone to take it for me. She replied, "Those &#)&@, I can't believe they would put you on lock in and no &W@+#@ would take it." I told her I tried to get someone. She replied, "This isn't right. You need to be f.... home with her. What if something happens? I'll take your lock in and you go home and be with her."

Some people would focus on Terri's language during this conversation, but my wife and I and our friends focused on the act of kindness. Some of the rough edges were still there, but there was a change occurring and I will never forget this kind act. A few weeks later, we say Terri walking down the sidewalk coming from the mess hall and she was off duty. She had on casual but nice clothes, natural red hair, no Gothic look, and was happy as could be. The face lines and angry look were gone and she was smiling. Chuck said, "Wow, what's up with your hair? I didn't even know that was your real color. Where did the black hair and Gothic look go?" Terri said the way she looked was an outward manifestation of the way she was, but she changed and wanted her new look to manifest the joy she now felt. Chuck asked what joy. Terri replied, "Do you remember how you all talked to me about God? I became a Christian." She said at first she felt Satan's anger at losing her and letting her go and she would get violently sick and vomit. She said she kept asking the Lord to deliver her and instantly she felt better, felt relieved and filled with joy. Chuck asked what prompted her to become a Christian. Terri said when she asked about God and engaged in our conversations, we were all kind to her, and with kindness, Chuck was not only kind, but very informative and took so much time with her. She said she felt touched and wanted what we had.

The God haters have textbooks for proof of their claims and Christians have stories like Terri's.

 

That isnt how it works, the claimant has the burden of proof, not the hearer of the information.

This ought to be good.

How is this a manifestation of God? Can you demonstrate how God went about doing this? Can you explain the millions of religious experiences that others have had that are NOT related to Christianity?

 

I'm still waiting for a response to my post, #615.

 

Provide the link.

 

So what if you disagree. That means nothing.

Then simply prove that God is a fictional character.
"fic·tion (fkshn)
n.
1.
a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
3.
a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator."

Prove that God fits into all of those listings and that there are no other ways to define 'God'.

 

Nope, what matters is your opinion on the matter. You disagree that the character of God is portrayed differently?

Why would I need to prove this? My case doesn't rest on Yahweh being fictional, I just believe he is. What's on trial here are the actions of God as portrayed in the Bible. Either he is real or not. But, that doesn't change how he is portrayed in the Bible.

 

Ah... you just believe that Yahweh is fictional. Now you have placed yourself in the same position as Theists who simply believe that 'God is'. So you admit to having a blind faith that Yahweh is fictional.

How he is portrayed in the Bible is also irrelevant, according to thebrucebeat... as (according to thebrucebeat) none of that can be validated. Now are you suggesting that all of those things (especially those things relating to the character of God) can be validated?

 

Yes I have visited San Francisco. That DOES NOT MEAN I LIVED THERE.

You made the claim that I had a residence in SF, not BACK IT UP.

 

Yet in a post today, you attempt to incense me about my question regarding whether or not you died in SF. So, based on what you cajoled me about and that cajoling amounting to an admission that you did not die there and now your admission that you were there, then logic says that you were living there in SF.


No! You used the term residence. I said you lived there. And immediately above, you admit that you "lived there". That admission would also entail you having an address while you were there. However long, short, or for whatever purpose, you had an address there. Semantics is a witch sometimes. It is no fault of mine that you place a different meaning on words than what I do.

 

I am not just claiming the existence of God, but a particular God as well as the other two parts of the Trinity, to include the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. People deny Christ is the Messiah, while others deny He even existed as a person. I disagree on both accounts. Not only did He exist as a person, but He is the risen Lord. Consider the testimony. Keep in mind there is much documentation, many testimonies, and the Jews as well as the Romans were excellent keepers of records and censuses. One witness in a present day courtroom can affect the outcome and verdict of a trial and with the existence of Christ and who He claimed to be, there are many.

Consider the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents. It contains the early basic instructions of Christianity. It is believed to be written by the original Apostles and believed to be dated between 50 - 120AD. The document mentions Jesus and states "baptism must be in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit." As this is a first generation Christian document, most likely being written by the Apostles, the writings would be of those who knew Jesus in person.

Also, consider Cornelius Tacitus who was a Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120 A.D. He was a Roman historian who has been described as at least one of the greatest historians of the Roman Empire. He was known for his morality and integrity. He is famous for the Annals and the Histories, which are the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in 14 A.D. to Nero’s death in 68 A.D. and beginning after Nero’s death and ending with Domitian’s death in 96 A.D. respectively.

Tacitus described Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on Christians. Tacitus refers to Chrestus, which is known to be an early spelling or common misspelling of Christ. Tacitus stated Chrestus was executed by Pilate and refers to Pilate as the procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberias. Tacitus loathed Christianity and stated it was a superstition. If Jesus did not physically exist, why would Tacitus just state Christ didn’t exist, instead of affirming He did exist, but the religion centered on Him is mere superstition?

A court official for Emperor Hadrian and Roman historian, Suetonius referred in his Life of Claudius of Claudius expelling Jews from Rome due to their activities on behalf of Chestus.

In Asia Minor around 112 A.D. Christians were executed for refusing to worship a statue of Emperor Trajan. Pliny, one of the executioners wrote in a letter to Trajan how Christians would speak of singing songs to Christ as they believed He was God or a god. Now, isn’t it quite possible given the time frame some of them knew Christ personally or knew people who knew Christ personally, especially if they could have been direct descendants of those who lived during the time Christ was physically on Earth?

Ancient historians Thallus and Phlegon confirmed the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. Not only is this testimony of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but also parallels what is reflected in the Bible. Mara Bar-Sharapion, believed to be a Stoic philosopher around 70 A.D., stated in a letter to his son the Jews executed their King. This was the charge the Romans held Christ on when the religious leaders said they had no king but Caesar. Josephus was born around 38 A.D. and died after 100 A.D. He was a Jewish historian and wrote the Antiquities. In these writings he described Jesus as a “wise man and doer of wonderful works.” He also wrote Jesus was executed by Pilate and rose from the dead. Now, Josephus was born just after Christ’s crucifixion, but as a historian, Josephus probably would not have put his name to claims he could not verify.

Tertullian was born around 155 A.D. and accepted as a Roman citizen who was educated and well versed in the law. His texts are considered genuine. He wrote the following to the Roman Senate:

"At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.

But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulcher was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty...All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius."

Tertullian also stated a written report of the crucifixion was submitted by Pilate to the emperor. It’ s also interesting there don’t appear to be any reports of Roman documents denying the crucifixion of Christ. With the problems they claimed to have with Christians and the atrocities they committed against Christians, surely the Romans would have been quick to expose this following as superstition and the easiest way to disprove the theory would be to prove Christ did not even physically exist, if He did not, which He did.

The apostate Julian was born around 331 A.D. and died around 363 A.D. He opposed Christianity and had interest in refuting stifling the spreading of the Gospel of Christ. He would have mentioned the fact Jesus did not exist, if He didn’t, yet, Julian actually referred to the records of Jesus’ crucifixion.

James, known for his letter in the Bible and a brother of Christ is known to have existed as his tomb was found and identified as being the half brother of Jesus. King Herod was proven by archeologists to have existed.

His charge among the Jews was He claimed to be of God. His charge for trial among the Romans was He claimed to be a king. For this, He suffered a hideous and torturous flogging and brutal punishment, followed by an excruciating death, which historians recorded they witnessed. Now, if He was not what He claimed to be, why would He not admit it to avoid this torture and execution? If He were a deceiver, why would there be so much documentation of His moral teachings? If He were a raving lunatic, how could He have reached out to so many different people with so many different backgrounds and affect them in such a way? How could He captivate their hearts, minds, attention and emotion? Why wouldn’t the religious leaders have been able to easily expose Him as a mad man or a fraud, instead of going to the trouble they did to get Him crucified?

 

Quit with the bull(*)(*)(*)(*), this is YOUR post:

Are you denying that you asked me if I died in SF now?

Who is trying to incense who? You are simply being obtuse on this matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, you are simply being obtuse on this for no reason.

Here is you original quote:

It was YOU that mentioned the term 'residence'. Anyone with brain in their head can CLEARLY see you are saying I had a residence in San Francisco.

Do you get your kicks trolling in forums and being obtuse on purpose?

 

Nope! I am not denying asking you that question.

Actually I am being rather straight forward. I have no reason to attempt to incense you.

Once again, I am being rather straight forward.

Actually, that was "current residence". At the time of my writing that message you might not have been living in SF. When you were in SF, you did have a residence. Which motel or hotel was it that you stayed in?
"res·i·dence (rz-dns, -dns)
n.
1. The place in which one lives; a dwelling.
2. The act or a period of residing in a place.
3. A medical residency.
4. The official home or location of a corporation."

So, you see, there is no longevity requirement for one to have a residence. Merely a "period of residence".

Trolling? Being obtuse? Can you provide proof of either of those claims?

 

^^^^ the above....just being obtuse and clearly trolling. Visiting a place does not mean residing there. This is common (*)(*)(*)(*)ing knowledge.

To you get your kicks on playing stupid semantic games like this? Is your life this boring?

Please keep this up. I will keep exposing these stupid BS semantic games. I love showing how you fail at your stated mission of keeping young christians on the path of christianity. Anyone who can only play stupid sematic games, is someone that no one will follow or give any creditability to whatsoever.

 

I don't have an "onus" to justify my doubts of god any more than I have an onus to justify my belief in the Loch Ness monster. In other words, only the person making the claim has the burden of proof. I don't believe in god, but I never claimed that god never existed, so I have no burden of proof.

Those who claim that there is a God have the burden of proof because they're the one making the claim. They have all failed to sway me.

 

Well, obviously and according to your own words, you were not dieing there, so you must have been living there, and if you were living there, then you had a residence there for however long or short the period of time was. You still have not offered any proof of "trolling" or of being "obtuse".

No! My life is bountiful, full of fun, a little bit of excitement when friends and family are around but is is excitement with fun. Your first question above is open ended, as it does not make any sense at all. What semantic games? Semantics is an art or in some circles it is called a science.

Expose whatever you like, however, each time you attempt to expose a 'semantic game', make sure that you are prepared to prove that it is in FACT a semantic "game".

Which post was it that you allege that my 'stated mission' is "keeping young christians on the path of christianity"?

That is a matter of opinion, especially when you have not absolutely exposed any semantic games.

 

Let it go dude....this does nothing to add to your seeming stability.

You are already seen as a relatively strange individual...the fixation makes it worse...please stop.