Religion is irrelevant in todays world

As a general rule, I reject sarcasm coming from people such as you, because sarcasm is a cowards way of saying something without saying what is truly desired to be stated. Sarcasm is also composed of statements which do not have empirical evidence to support the content of the sarcastic remark. In this particular case, you project a lie and then attempt to rationalize the lie by saying that it was sarcasm. The true meaning is that you do not have the empirical evidence to support the claim that you made.

 

I suggest you read your own posts as if they were written to you from someone else. Perhaps a switch in perspective can help you Im not sure, but you do need help.

Do you really think a person would to fly all over the world interviewing people so they could respond to a question on an internet forum ?

The real lie here is the one you keep telling yourself. The big lie that underlies your perspective.

If almost nothing meets your test for reality, then do you really live in reality ?

The Holocost didn't happen
Jesus didn't happen
WW2 didn't happen, and so on

These didn't happen because they do not meet your test ?

Yikes ..

 

Perhaps a change in your perspective would help. You do need help.

No! And that should be a learning lesson to you that will cause you to be more conscious of what words you elect to use in your writings.

And what 'lie" would that be? Can you show one? Can you provide the necessary objective empirical evidence to support your claim?

Do I respond to your postings? If the answer to that is 'yes', then I suppose I exist within this reality.

OK. Now what is that supposed to prove?

Only one problem. Those are your claims, NOT MINE. Error of presumption on your part.

Yep! Yike! Busted you in another error.

 

Ya .. would your own words suffice ?

The like is that in order to accept something as reality one has to have interviewed all people involved (and done a spiritual test on them to confirm if they are Christian is even more rediculous).

Lets ignore the spiritual test and just keep your "interviewing all involved criterial" for acceptance of reality.

Do I respond to your postings? If the answer to that is 'yes', then I suppose I exist within this reality.

What do you accept as reality if nothing meets your test. What could possibly meet this test ?

OK. Now what is that supposed to prove?

According to your test criteria none of these events are to be believed.

It is not my test. They do not meet your test !

What claims of mine trouble you ? My only claim is that by your standard of evidence none of the above events happened.

Did you personally interview "everyone" involved ?

Yep! Yike! Busted you in another error.

Ummmm yeah .. completely busted.

 

If my own words can be used to show where I have lied, then by any means (excluding more of your misrepresentations) proceed.

Another of your misrepresentations. You previously claimed that you had interviewed all of the people involved in the list of events that you had posted as an alleged evidence of some ill designed Christian activity(ies). You also claimed that you did perform a spiritual test on all of those same individuals. What in fact happened, is that you either read in a newspaper or other printed news journal or you saw reports on television or heard about them on radio or listened to the reports of other people; subsequently to your chosen process of data gathering, you presumed that all of those people were Christians. But you don't KNOW whether they are Christians or not. You have made a misrepresentation of facts.

Another presumption on your part. All I did was ask if you had interviewed those people and if you had performed a spiritual test to determine if they were all Christians. If you do not KNOW factually that all of those people are Christians, then you are making a misrepresentation of 'REALITY'.

I accept this series of communications between you and me as reality, because I am experiencing these communications. First of all, you speak about "your test"... it is not MY test... it is a 'spiritual test', and because you have no idea or belief in the spiritual realm, then it is also appropriate for me to conclude that it would do no good for me to go into any great details explaining any of it to you. It is way over your head.

Really? You make that presumption without KNOWING anything about the test and or how the test is executed? Interesting.

How do you KNOW if they were capable of either passing or failing the test if you did not perform the test? That is my whole point. And because you did not perform the test, then you don't KNOW if those people were Christian or not. You are basing your entire argument on the presumption that all of those people were factually Christian.

For this thread, and this thread only... the one you list in your statement below, and the subsequent claim made earlier regarding the spiritual status of all those people.

I am not the one making the claim that they were all Christian. That is your claim .... ALSO.

Then you admit that you are busted. Cool.

 

I am not talking about a spiritual test. I am talking about the your interview comment.

You claim not to accept historical evidence unless one has personally interviewed all people involved.

By this test of validity you must not believe much.

Holocaust
Jesus
WW2

You have not interviewed everyone involved in the creation of that history.

 

You also need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

"You still have not shown any proof of Christians being involved in any of those cited activities. Did you question all of those people involved and perhaps do a spiritual test to determine whether or not they were factually Christian? No? Then you are merely stating an opinion based on an observation that did not display all the necessary details. It is a presumption in all of the cases you cited."

Those are the questions I asked about and in which the subject of 'spiritual test' was introduced. So we are talking about a spiritual test. It is very difficult for you to evade the facts when the facts are readily available on this forum and in this thread.

If the claims about history are not supported with objective empirical evidence of all components of the historical event, then I QUESTION the validity of those events. However, your presumption that I "do not accept" them is a blatant presumption based on non-fact. Another error of presumption.

On the contrary. I believe a lot. In fact, I believe more than what you do.

Everyone involved in that history is not my claim. Again, that claim or those claims are your mental torment,,, not mine. I will say however, that the Jesus part I believe unquestionably. WW2 and the Holocaust both were before my entry into the world, so I cannot attest to the validity of those events. Jesus, though, lives in my heart and therefore, I can attest to His presence with me.

 

My reading comprehension is fine

You do not accept evidence unless all those people were questioned .. dead or alive.

Good thing the legal system does not work like that !

Yup .. Got it. You do not believe anything that you have not personally witnessed.

You did not witness Jesus nor do you know that the "presence" within you is Jesus or the deciever.

 

That statement in itself is questionable.

Another error of presumption. Was 'dead or alive' a part of the original question that I presented to you? No? Then another misrepresentation on your part. Another error of presumption is your attempt to establish a criteria that will govern what I will and will not accept as evidence.

Irrelevant.

Wrong again. You need to take that presumptuous nature of yours and get it under control. I did not witness the flood spoken of in the Bible, yet I believe it; I did not witness the crucifixion, yet I believe it; I did not witness the parting of the Red Sea, yet I believe it. So, you see now, you don't know as much about me as you would like to presume.

More of your presumptions... you again presume that you KNOW what I know regarding the presence of Jesus within my heart and whether I know the difference between Him and the deceiver.. I will grant to you that I did not personally witness Jesus walking around on this little green and blue orb drifting through space, but I still believe in Jesus and trust Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

 

Quote:

You do not accept evidence unless all those people were questioned

Yup .. Got it. You do not believe anything that you have not personally witnessed.

.


More of your presumptions... you again presume that you KNOW what I know regarding the presence of Jesus within my heart and whether I know the difference between Him and the deceiver..

No presumption .. you do not know whether it is the presense of Jesus you feel anymore than any other person who "feels" a presence. You do not know whether it is the deceiver or not.

I felt a stirring in my loins the other day when a pretty girl walked by .. was that the Holy Spirit trying to tell me something ?

You do not believe in history that you did not personally witness but you believe that a person that supposedly walked around doing miracles 2000 years ago was God.

That makes loads of sense.

 

Nope! All that means is that I am not accepting your evidence when your evidence has not been validated as accurate.

Reading comprehension is really becoming a problem to you. I previously stated many things which are reported to have occurred which I did not witness, yet I believe those things. See, you are falling into that trap of making misrepresentations again. And getting busted at it.

.

Another error in presumption: Again you presume to KNOW what I know and what I do not KNOW. You are basing your presumption through a condition of ignorance of the subject matter. Subject matter being me and what I know and what I don't know.

More than likely it was the 'un-Holy spirit'. But that is your private business.

If you are using the word "believe" in the sense of 'trusting' or having 'confidence' in that reported history then you might be right but your level of right would be dependent upon which particular history you are speaking about. Nice little attempt at trapping me... but unfortunately for you, the Lord is watching over me and pointing out to me all the little contrivances your are attempting to use against me. Pity... you will tire out shortly...

It makes absolute sense, when you are trusting in the Lord Jesus.

 

You can continue your deceiving yourself as long as you like

This is not about trapping you.

Explain yourself since I seem to have such troubled understanding.

What proof do you require ?

 

Prove your claim that I am deceiving myself.

So you say, but I will continue leaning on the advice of the Holy Spirit as opposed to trusting your word.

Prove that those people were Christian. Many people claim that they are Christian, and because of your secular gullibility, you will take the word of people making such a claim as true. As for me, I will question and test anyone claiming to be a Christian. The details of that method of testing I will not go into because you don't believe in spirits.

Confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

 

Is it not clear ?

Originally Posted by Giftedone
You can continue your deceiving yourself as long as you like

Prove your claim that I am deceiving myself.

I would not trust advice from internet posters either.

You do not receive advice from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit told me that she does not give out advice to anyone when I asked her.

Don't be telling fibs now !

.

I was talking about proof for history.

Try again.

 

GiftedOne: You have been reported for intentionally interrupting the quote function and disabling the ability of readers to authenticate your quotes.

 

Do you know remember what you said in a previous post ? It is not like I am going back a couple pages even ?

Now come clean about your fib in relation to the Holy Spirit !

.

I would not trust advice from internet posters either.

You do not receive advice from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit told me that she does not give out advice to anyone when I asked her.

Don't be telling fibs now !

 

Now you are accusing me of telling a lie (fib). Prove your claim.

.

Who is giving advice? Are you?

Now you allude to a claim that your mamma is the holy spirit? "she"? If you want to start playing the dozens game (prison terminology), then I can surely accommodate you in that regard also.

Show where I have told one.

 

Evidence of the existence of God for me and many others are a personal thing. Not transferable as evidence for anyone else.

 

Personal anecdote does not meet the requirements of scientific evidence.

 

Neither does mathematical models that are a mere representation of some creature of the mind... they are purely subjective in their origin.

 

Exactly, I agree with you. That doesn't make it invalid as evidence for the person. Just ask someone with children to prove they love their children with scientific evidence and see how far that gets you.

 

To say that mathematics is subjective is astoundingly ridiculous.

 

Think so? Well, there seems to be a lot of thought being put into that subject matter by people that even I feel are deeply more qualified than any I have met on this forum, that suggests that you might be in error.

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...cs/2008_March_17#is_mathematics_subjective.3F
(the most favored source on this forum)

and

speaking as a general search on the subject:
http://www.google.com/#pq=mathemati....,cf.osb&fp=6844df49ecc9ed6e&biw=1024&bih=558

You might want to look over some of that material or stay ignorant of the subject matter.

 

First, this is not any type of formal paper, etc, but rather a sort of forum, not unlike this one, consisting of only opinion discussion by various people. However, so as you don't just declare "ad hom" and be done with it...

Most of the discussion is centered around a misapplication of the terms "subjective" and "objective", which is even pointed out by at least one of the posters. For example, some argue that attributing a mistake by a mathematician in a theorem as subjectivity. It's not, it's just simply a mistake. If I misspell the word "dog" as "dgo", did I subjectively spell "dog"? No, I just goofed up and didn't actually spell "dog" at all.

In other posts, they discuss the fact that it is possible to arrive at a certain mathematical conclusion by beginning with different sets of axioms (simplified example: 2+2 and 6-2 both equal 4), would be considered subjective. This is also false. While yes, the different sets of axioms were a choice by the mathematicians, the actual math that proceeded from use of those axiom was purely objective.

After a brief skimming of the search results, there is also none on the first page that support your argument. I'm not taking more time than that though, as it's your argument and I'm not going to try and make it for you.

Come back when you have some kind of professional peer reviewed paper declaring math to be subjective (I think I'll be waiting quite a while).

You may want to actually have some valid reference material before claiming that you know what you're talking about.

 

Not sure what fantasy you are referring to but nowhere in the quote below do I refer to my mother? Is this some kind of desperation tactic or are you

Please leave my mother out of the discussion.

Did you not know that the Holy Spirit is female ? Think about it ..

Father, Holy Spirit, Son - What is missing from the family ?

You say you commune with the Holy Spirit so I am suprised that you missed that obvious detail.