Is there any wonder......

Nullity, ignore lists are good for posters like this.

 

.

We were having a debate about the holocaust and he would not accept the evidence presented because I did not personally interview everyone involved. I am sure that even if I had he would still find some way to live in denial.

Proving something to Incorp is not possible.

 

The reason that you are having so much difficulty 'proving' anything to me, is because you never bring with you objective empirical evidence. Instead, you bring your private opinions, the opinions of others, misrepresentations of fact (such as your lie stated in red text above), ridicule,,,,, but never any objective empirical evidence.

 

You have given your definition of "objective emperical evidence"

You were not there to personally question the folks that made it out of the holocaust alive so you will not accept its validity.

Got it.

 

Prove your claim. I have used the expression "objective empirical evidence", but I have not offered a definition of that expression. Now prove your claim, else this post will attest to the fact that you are chronically misrepresenting material facts.

Please look up the definitions of the terms "attest" and "accept". If I attested to the validity of the Holocaust, I would be guilty of making a false claim, because I did not 'witness' those events. All I can attest to is the existence of artifacts that are claimed by others to be related to an event called the Holocaust. I accept those artifacts as being in existence and the fact that people represent those artifacts as being related to an even that they refer to as the Holocaust. Honesty is the best policy. Now you would not want me to make a dishonest attestation regarding any matter would you?

 

I do not need to prove anything .. proof is in your own statement.

If this is the evidence you require (personally interviewing folks as proof of validity) otherwise it merely opinion and presumption.

You did not personally interview

Holocaust survivers, WWI survivors, and the witnesses to Christ so this is all opinion and presumption according to your criteria.

Got it !

 

No! This one you do need to prove, else your lack of proof will move you from making misrepresentations to being an outright liar.

Then what?

Absolutely it is personal opinion. Even the part about Jesus. It is my opinion that Jesus lived on this earth, was crucified and died on that cross, was buried in a tomb, and rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of God. But better than all of that... I BELIEVE it, because his Holy Spirit communes with me and gives me the confidence (faith) I need on a daily basis. You see, I can attest to that about Jesus, because it is a personal experience. As for the other stuff about the Holocaust and WWI survivors,,, all I can attest to is the existence of the artifacts.

Frustrating how the Lord keeps jamming up your little rabbit traps: Isn't it?

 

LOL .. I do not need any traps. You have trapped yourself.

If you think the holocaust did not happen because it was "personal opinion" you are welcome to your personal opinion.

It is your "personal opinion" that it is the Holy Spirit who you commune with. Nothing more. It could be any old, or young spirit.

If your version of reality does not include any scientific, historical, archaeological, philosophical or logical evidence .. you are welcome to your personal opinion.

 

Not hardly.. you lose again.

Where did I say that I thought the Holocaust did not occur? There you are caught in yet another misrepresentation. Pretty soon, I am gonna just start labeling your errors as ramblings of a chronic liar as opposed to being nice and just referring to those errors as misrepresentations.

Correct.

Error, Error, Error. Look back at what I said. More than just opinion. It is Belief based on personal experience.

How would you know? Do you now believe in spirits? Do you know how to tell the difference between a 'young' one or an 'old' one? Where did you gain such information? Your statement "It could be" shows that you are showing a degree of belief in the existence of spirits. That in fact would be an admission to the possibility of the spirits existence and the existence of a spiritual realm.

You seem to disregard the several times on this forum where I have stated that I have an obligation to accept some scientific laws, rules, principles, theories because of my degree in Computer Electronics. So again, you speak through willful ignorance of the subject matter.. subject matter being me.

 

Reminds me of the star trek robot just prior to overload !

How do you tell the difference between a young or old spirit ?

If you believe that history is verified by more than witnessing the event then why did ask me such a nonsensical question> "have I interviewed all the people in relation to the claim I was making"

Nonsense.

 

Unfortunately for you, none of those alleged quotes are valid, as they do not contain an active link where they can be readily accessed. Now when you want to start taking control of your computer in a manner that will allow a quoted statement to be an active link, then I will respond to them. I am not going to go searching back through this thread to find whether or not you are making an accurate quote. Obfuscation is also not a very nice thing to do. It is unethical.

Correct your error and re-post and I will respond.

 

Dude .. we are all not computer scientists !

I only have one question in relation to your previous comments.

How do you tell the difference between an old and young spirit ?

 

It is amazing that the quote function suddenly started working after you got reported.

It is you who brought up the subject of 'young' and 'old' spirits. Therefore, that claim is yours and it is your obligation to support that claim with objective empirical evidence.

 

Was just a guess on my part .. you were the one talking about communing with spirits.

If you can tell whether or not it is the holy spirit you are communing with rather than some other spirit. If you cant tell whether a spirit is old or young then how do you know what kind of spirit it is ?

 

Now you are making inquiry into the method of testing. You really want to know, then do your own research right here on this forum. I have posted the information several times, but you seem to have conveniently overlooked those postings else intentionally disregarded them.

Show your sincerity regarding a desire to know those answers by looking back through the postings of this and other threads where I have recently posted.

 

Nope .. all that is suggested in the Bible is that you question a spirit about Jesus.

It does not say how to tell if a spirit is old or young.

 

Exactly the point. It makes no difference if the spirit is young or old.

 

Montanist heresy.

Talking to spirits is verboten !

Back in the good ol days proper Christians would have burned you alive for such claims.

 

We all have to die one way or another. To you it makes no difference anyway.. so what is your point? Just another attempt to harass and ridicule? You fail.

 

I know, I've been debating it. I would be happier without the BS, but he's just so wrong all the time that it's difficult for me to not point this out whenever I can.

 

Par for the course unfortunately. Some people do not understand the concepts of intellectual honesty and integrity.

 

Though rstones199 is suggesting that you place me on an ignore list, the advice he gives you is advice that he himself wishes to disregard. He is posting on a thread that I started, which means that; even though he cannot see what I am writing (unless my writing is quoted by another member not on his ignore list), he is on this thread for the sole purpose of creating distractions and disrupting the flow of information pertaining to the subject matter of the OP. So much for the integrity of rstones199.

 

People such as you, rstones199, and GiftedOne. The evidence of my claim regarding the lack of integrity of you, rstones199 and GiftedOne is readily available in this thread.

 

LOL, I am not at all worried about others opinions of me in comparison to you.

 

I don't care about their opinions either. It is their right to express their opinions. On the other hand is the annoyance of the commercial obligation to respond to those annoyances lest you suffer the consequence of acquiescence.

On the other hand, I see that when your name was thrown into the mix of people who are suffering from a lack of integrity, you wasted no time in making a futile response. Your response proves my point of the matter of acquiescence. You sensed (if not KNEW) that you had to defend your own name and character, so you responded, thus showing a degree of concern about the opinion of others.