FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page The Septuagint and Christianity
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 12 of 13 « First 21011 12 13
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2012, 11:37 PM   #111
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Please, nothing could have been revealed to Paul from a non-existing resurrected Jesus or non-existing God of Moses.
Just because there was no historical Jesus does not mean that Jesus has no existence.
What abusurdity!!! Please review your statement because it does NOT make much sense.

So, just because there was no historical Satan does NOT mean that Satan has no existence???

If you were in a court room you would be a laughing stock.

In the actual world once there was no historical Jesus then Jesus had no existence.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 12:31 AM   #112
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
So, just because there was no historical Satan does NOT mean that Satan has no existence???
Not sure what you're trying to say with the triple negative, but yes Satan does not need to exist or have existed as a physical corporeal being to exist.

In short, there is a non-physical universe.

Quote:
In the actual world once there was no historical Jesus then Jesus had no existence.
"Once there was no historical Jesus"? What does that mean?
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 05:20 AM   #113
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Not sure what you're trying to say with the triple negative, but yes Satan does not need to exist or have existed as a physical corporeal being to exist.

In short, there is a non-physical universe.
In effect, You are peddling a load of BS. The non-physical universe is a gaveyard. There you will find the names of persons that are deemed non-physical.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 06:56 AM   #114
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 829
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker
Not sure what you're trying to say with the triple negative, but yes Satan does not need to exist or have existed as a physical corporeal being to exist.

In short, there is a non-physical universe.
Hi Horatio, I am sorry, but I am unable to understand what you wish to communicate.

Can you please try again, this time, use someone other than a figure from the bible.

Superman
Sasquatch
Nessie
Huckleberry Finn
Don Giovanni
Captain Yossarian
Babe the Blue Ox

Do you wish to explain that these fictional characters could have existed, but we simply don't know that supposed fact?

If so, then, I must firmly disagree.
I have no idea what you wish to communicate, in writing "non-physical universe".

very puzzled....

:huh:
tanya is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 07:35 AM   #115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 694
Default Not all points of view carry equal weight
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
An objective view, then.
While I have no doubt that many people consider their own views to be objective, somehow most people seem to think of others' views as purely subjective.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that a viewpoint that is heavily annotated and referenced carry more weight than the viewpoints of someone who can only rarely be bothered to reference his sources...
thentian is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 08:14 AM   #116
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by thentian View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
An objective view, then.
While I have no doubt that many people consider their own views to be objective, somehow most people seem to think of others' views as purely subjective.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that a viewpoint that is heavily annotated and referenced carry more weight than the viewpoints of someone who can only rarely be bothered to reference his sources...
Another objective view!
sotto voce is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 11:18 AM   #117
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 694
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thentian View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
An objective view, then.
While I have no doubt that many people consider their own views to be objective, somehow most people seem to think of others' views as purely subjective.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that a viewpoint that is heavily annotated and referenced carry more weight than the viewpoints of someone who can only rarely be bothered to reference his sources...
Another objective view!
I have no idea why you persist with these objective/subjective comments, especially with regards to a post that suggests how you can lend more weight to your arguments.

Perhaps you have nothing of any weight to say?
thentian is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 11:43 AM   #118
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by thentian View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thentian View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
An objective view, then.
While I have no doubt that many people consider their own views to be objective, somehow most people seem to think of others' views as purely subjective.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that a viewpoint that is heavily annotated and referenced carry more weight than the viewpoints of someone who can only rarely be bothered to reference his sources...
Another objective view!
I have no idea why you persist with these objective/subjective comments
Can you prove that?

When will you write a sentence that is susceptible to proof?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 01:05 PM   #119
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default
Define proof
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 01:14 PM   #120
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Define proof
Evidence that convinces.
sotto voce is offline  
 
Page 12 of 13 « First 21011 12 13

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.