|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proof and analysis of Biblical end time accuracey [Synnegi] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6715 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe you. This is a matter of debating in good faith. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. You are obligated to either do so or withdraw the claim. Your attempts at backing up your claim have so far failed, so produce more and better evidence or admit you were wrong.
Are you here to debate or do you think that making a bunch of unsupported assertions is going to accomplish anything? It won't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
they have not failed, you are debating creation and evolution. you cannot completely disregard creation and faith since you yourself can always simply deny believing something as true, and then expect people to respect your stance.
i gave you real instances, and you simply choose not to have believe they were inspired by God. beyond such i can offer no more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6715 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
You don't want to debate. You want people to believe things because you do.
You don't know what is and what is not evidence. Your belief that you have presented any is proof of that.
...you yourself can always simply deny believing something as true, and then expect people to respect your stance. This is rich. I am not taking a positive stance. You are, and you are not doing it very well. You made the claim. Back it up with actual evidence or argument or withdraw.
i gave you real instances... Have you? You said speaking in tongues was real. Then you gave a link to a site where a few other people also say it is real. These are all subjective personal accounts. If you think they constitute support of your position, I only hope that if I am ever on trial, the prosecuter thinks like you. This message has been edited by mikehager, 12-31-2004 21:59 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
How many times do you repeat yourself? Nothing pleases you, and furthermore you appear to only be looking for a fight and to arouse people's annoyance and anger.
This thread clearly does not involve you, as you made it clear you have no interest in anything I or anyone else has to say; and when we do things for you, you selfishly are not thankful for them. You just repeat yourself, insult me, and ask for more. If any Administrators are reading this, I ask that you do not let his negativity lead you to close it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
but unless you start supporting some of your assertions you may well find yourself in Bootcamp.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
Excuse me, but I have told you that I have supported it. Unless you start be consistent with your demands, I will never be able to make you happy.
He asked for support, and I gave it. The only other thing to support tongues would be to miraculously force him to start speaking it himself. If I had known by joining this forum I was required to play a Darwinist (survival-the-fittest) by elevating myself with huge impressive unquestionable proofs, I would have never registered. Otherwise, if mikehager genuinely is interested in information on tongues, I among several others posted information regarding it. I am not required to withdraw a claim if I faithfully believe it. This is creation vs. evolution discussion. I had no idea faith was frowned upon. If I had known everyone here is required to pretend to be an atheist or hide their religion unless they can perform miraculous convincing and/or scientific signs, like I said, I would never have joined. Am I wrong here? I tell you my point of view. I would like someone who sees error in my ways to speak to me like a person; so far I've only been accused and been told to do things I believe I've already done. Tell me the assertions I have yet to support since you suggest there are some.Tell me, and tell me what type of support you are looking for; and then I will not understand you. Otherwise if it is true you do not wish to be understood as a member of authority, I will humbly leave the ungodly shadow of this place. This message has been edited by umliak, 01-01-2005 18:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
...let me reword that, out of respect to you being an Administrator. If religious facts are meant to be repressed, please tell me now. Otherwise tell me, and I will ask this one last time, what it is I you are requesting I give you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2551 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
umliak, a statement of belief is just that, a statement of belief. No one here will deny you that belief. A statement of fact is something different. A fact will have evidence to support it. A fact will be a fact no matter the worldview of the observer.
If you want to reword your assertion on tongues to be a statement of belief then it can be dropped. If you continue to argue it as a statement of fact then you are going to be continually asked for evidence to support it. Websites of others that believe in something does not make it a fact. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
Fine; then if that is the case, people should not be allowed to ask for proof over and over if they know they will not accept any without a miracle.
Why induce conflict? I provided a woman who is thought to sing in tongues, and my religious fact says tongues is a real language. So beyond that I see no reason why anyone would cause conflict and go out of their way to do so. But for the sake of religion; I will withdraw tongues as being, on my part, an archaeologically proven language so as to provide evidence of archaeology finds to prove tongues as a historically interpreted or documented consistently spoken language of or among a fluent person, or persons. Is that good? The fact that tongues is spoken calls it a real language, in my estimates and understanding; in fact if the people who speak tongues interpret it, then it is a real language--as people have developed their own languages outside of divine inspiration, and they are factually considered real. Such as the Elvish language. I myself can make up my own language and call it real and it will by fact be considered so since I can speak it and interpret it. So, yes, I will withdraw tongues as being, on my part, an archaeologically proven language so as to provide evidence of archaeology finds to prove tongues as a historically interpreted or documented consistently spoken language of or among a fluent person, or persons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2551 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
people should not be allowed to ask for proof over and over if they know they will not accept any without a miracle. That is not what was said umliak. Something that would require a miracle for someone else to believe = a belief. A fact would not need a miracle, it is something that would be a fact no matter the religious belief of the observer. A language is a communication, if no one else understands what is being said than no communication is taking place. Sort of like in the thread. Ella Fitzgerald is the Queen of Scat. Is it a real language? I don't think so. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
No, but cat's meow and dogs go whoof.
Lisa Gerrard goes, "flavum, flavum."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6715 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
You really aren't reading anything anyone writes, are you? You didn't say "I believe that speaking in tongues is a real language". You asserted as fact that it is. That's the difference I and others have been trying to get through to you. If it is a fact, it can be objectivelly and materially proven to be.
You have not done that, you have not withdrawn the claim, and you apparently fail to see the difference between a belief and a fact. The claim you made was that glossallia (sp?) is a real language and you have provided as evidence: 1. You saying that you think it is. 2. A webpage where others say they think it is. Do you see the problems with that or does it honestly escape you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6715 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
And I go "harracit harracit". Does that prove anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
umliak Inactive Member |
Excuse me, but I believe I first accused you of not reading anything anyone writes. Do you think by continuing to copy off the things I say to you that you will somehow appear smarter?
If anyone speaks they speak on their own behalf. I regard my religion and beliefs as fact; if I did not they would not be beliefs. Therefore if you challenge a religious belief, and one provides justifiable accounts beyond their religious texts, then you should in effect find what it was you were looking for. You alone asked for support and I gave you it. Now that me and AdminAsgara chit-chatted a bit about the specifics of the debate, you now intervene with your own two-cents as to appear reasonable the entire time. The fact of the matter is, you asked for support on something I spoke regarding myself and my beliefs. Just because you have different objectives and viewpoints on matters doesn't mean I am in-tune with you. I am not your soulmate, I do not know your requirements for something to be considered a real language. If tongues is spoken by people, and I have texts telling me it is a real language, and then people turn to me and tell me it isn't real, it's gibberish, then I have the right to then turn and say it is real. If I do not, then I am now requesting you provide factual evidence that tongues is gibberish, beyond faith, or otherwise withdraw your claims. It's a two-way street buddy. Before being overlyconfident, I would suggest you evaluate your own claims. And for the record, I will use your own judgements here on such matters, and since I was told the only acceptable option of support for my beliefs was to withdraw my claims of tongues being a real language, I'll assume you'll have enough sense to withdraw your claims that tongues is anything but a real language. This is a two-way street to all who wish to become involved; it is Creation vs. Evolution, and if I will be oppressed and attacked for my religious beliefs which tell me that fact of religion should be considered off-the-bat true, unless you can prove otherwise, then I do expect the same respect in return since the unreligious people here are demanding respect on their beliefs that something ought not be considered fact off-the-bat. If you desire respect for the belief that something not be considered fact without proof, then for your sake I will remind you that the other half of us also demand respect that our beliefs be considered fact without question unless you can prove it isn't. I never read anything telling me I have to conform to unreligious standards. These forums, from what I've got the impression of, are divided. Religion vs. nonreligion. Therefore I demand now respect for my beliefs, unless you admit your demands are selfish and wrong. You have provided absolutely no proof of tongues not being a real language, nor gibberish. Nor have you provided proof there is no God, so I will demand proof of your claims. I also demand proof and support that the Bible is not archaeologically accurate, nor scientifically accurate in anyway.Otherwise withdraw all your claims as you have enslaved me to do. One you have provided proof and support (oh, yes mike, you have done a veeeeery poor job in doing so so far) for all your claims, then you may make more. And I suggest you be very careful, for every claim you demand of me, and everything you say (for as long as you rudely oppress faith.), I will demand likewise. And nobody can tell me I'm wrong here, because the fact is the basis of religion is that those who believe it consider it fact by nature. Therefore if unreligious people consider something unfactual by nature, I see no reason why those who are religious should have to conform to unreligious beliefs. That in itself is oppressive of religion and is one-sided, and I hope now you see my point, as I am making myself clearer. I've been trying to get this point across, and I think now I have used the right words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
then you will be expected to support it as such.
I regard my religion and beliefs as fact; [qs]If tongues is spoken by people, and I have texts telling me it is a real language, and then people turn to me and tell me it isn't real, it's gibberish, then I have the right to then turn and say it is real.[qs]
No, if challenged you have the requirement to support your assertion. A reference to other folk sharing the same beliefs is not evidence.
You have provided absolutely no proof of tongues not being a real language, nor gibberish Sorry, you were the one making the assertion that it is a valid language, so it is up to you to provide support. Finally, it is time you began to support your assertions beginning with those from the OP. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024