You asked whether resurrection and eternal life was the greatest lie ever told.
I suggested that all men being equal was in fact the greatest lie ever told.
I think you are confusing the term "equal" with the term "same".
They are distinctly different.
With regard to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
As defined here the "equal" term is a self evident state and is further a bestowment of their Creator(God) as a unalienable Right. Among which are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
"Equal" is a standing for all, but not the "same" state of outcome for all.
The course of pursuit is individual and brings with it individual results.
Quite frankly you're behaving like a petulant child in this, an example of a control group has been provided, and because it undermines your world view you simply dismiss it by shifting the goalposts on an almost daily basis.
Again, hardly.
The specified regions are still Europe and the Americas as originally indicated.
So to claim I am shifting the goalposts, is clearly a misquote.
That's aside from the fact that religions without deities influenced the most populous country on the planet for over 2,000 years.
And that influence is estimated at less than 1% of the population in that country.
So at over 2000 yrs. it's influence volume wise is practically non existent.
Again perhaps you can explain how at that percentage in it's native country it will suddenly take the world by storm?
I'm still waiting for your evidence on that.
I know, I'm not the one who keeps demanding it be conclusive, you are.
That's not a demand, just a fact of life.
I've extolled nothing of the sort, don't make things up as a distraction.
Obviously from the facts above, since you appear to believe Buddhism is a major influence when it clearly isn't,
the logical conclusion is to suspect you could be a Buddhist.?[/QUOTE]
You know fully well that I'm an atheist, I've stated as much enough times in this thread.
Allegiances, can and do change from time to time.
As discussed above, a re-check of your position seemed to be in order.
Your reaffirmation does beg another question.
If you are not impressed enough by Buddhism to engage it as an acceptable moral standard for yourself, why do you believe it would somehow be embraced on a large scale in Europe and the Americas?
As such I can only conclude that your either being deliberately misleading or antagonistic. Neither are acceptable.
Well under the circumstances, I see no evidence to support your conclusion.
You are applying a standard you presented.
Once
evidence is introduced into any examination, philosophical or otherwise,
evaluation and all subcategories of evidence come with it.
That is the only reality involving evidence.
Except that's not what I have said at all.
I've said that it was added by men, mortal men and that no evidence that what was added by those mortal men are the direct words of a 400 year dead divine being named Jesus.
No evidence,
other than their testimony.
The fact it was added 400 years later, does not support a conclusion that it was added erroneously.
Only that it was added as compared to an earlier writing.
You clearly know this to be the case because you then tried to use a philosophical standard (which doesn't apply) to say that both are equally likely, and in doing so had to redefine the standard.
Let me be clear in this, you have still failed to demonstrate why a philosophical standard should be used for physical evidence? The standard you presented is less relevant to this discussion that citing Moore's Law as a standard, simply because you 'think' it fits doesn't make it so.
The only thing I have tried to do, prompted by your accusation, is cite a standard for proving a negative.
I did not write the standard or redefine the standard.
Obviously, since this examination is more philosophical as opposed to legal that would be the most fitting category of
the two.
However, your referenced evidence does not support your conclusion, philosophically or legally.
BTW you misquoted me four times in the above statements.
A claim would make it testimony and by your logic evidence.
You are a Blue Whale.
Definition of evidence, not logic of evidence.
And unlike the examination in question, easily proven conclusively false.
It either has evidence or it doesn't.
Precisely.
I am testifying to it as a fact, and there is only one way to verify it.
An individual must go from without to within.
No you were not asking, you stated it as a fact.
Once again assigning a position to others that they do not hold.
That you then rephrased it as a question when pressed on the matter doesn't change that you stated it as fact.
As a general rule or much of the time fact, yes.
As an absolute unequivocal fact, no.
That is clearly evident, in testing with an immediately following qualifying question.
Had I been stating it as an absolute fact, there would have been no qualifying question.
All you have done, once again, in this thread is miss-quote people, assign positions and beliefs to them that they do not hold, miss-use systems and methods that you don't understand and attempt to re-define them when that is pointed out to you.
Perhaps you can explain how asking a question, is considered assignment?
Or assignment based on statements made, is misquoting?
I have not misused any methods or systems and to the contrary have referenced known and accepted material.
Neither have I redefined anything.
Upon what evidence do you base such ridiculous unfounded accusations?
And all you have done again in this thread is make bogus accusations, completely void of any basis in factual evidence.
As to misquoting you must be going for a new record.
I will first tell you (and this is not subject to debate) that if you miss-quote another member or assign a position to them that they clearly do not hold you will receive a formal warning. Given your past history of this, the warning will see you banned as a member.?
If you wish to continue to discuss this subject then do so in a manner that actually demonstrates some respect for the other members here, rather than simply changing definitions and systems in an attempt to suit your own world view.
I will ask you one very simple question in regard to the current discussion.
Do you have any independently verifiable physical evidence outside of the Bible that the words spoke are a direct quote from Jesus?
Given my extensive experience in this thread, particularly as regards your heavy handed attitude and repeated propensity to attempt to ban me under practically any frivolous cause, I have no choice but to suspend replies to you from this point on.
Perhaps once again we should consult Jordan privately on this issue.
Nothing can be confirmed individually, most certainly not on the level you're trying to push. Two different scenarios below:
Your reasoning here is like the question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make any sound?
The correct answer is, yes it makes the sounds that would be attributable, but there is no one around to hear it.
In reality everything is confirmed individually.
If there is no individual, there is no confirmable perception of anything.
1. You state "I believe in God, and have spiritual proof he exists".
2. I state "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and have spiritual proof of its divine deliciousness."
Tell me why 1 is acceptable and 2 is not.[/QUOTE]
First, I do not know of any serious testimonial evidence that claims the latter exists.
Second, neither do I know of any serious testimonial evidence that claims the latter ever invited any one to dine with him.
Third, unique as it maybe you can only receive what is offered through Jesus Christ personally or individually.
And BTW he extends a personal invitation for you to dine with him.
Fourth, once received it is in common among those who have done the same.
In other words I know exactly and am familiar with the influence and perspective DCP has, having received the same Holy Spirit personally, just as he has.
Lastly, have you never received anything personally or individually?
In reality has not everything you have received been in that manner?
Is your paycheck made out to someone else?
So that is surly not an unknown concept.
It is only ever believed, from any position. A thought, on it's own, is neither truth nor proof.
In the final analysis, everything is a matter of belief or individual perspective.
I'm not sure what a thought has to do with it.
. Please give me that question again. I'll answer faithfully.
Holy moly. Your mom's a bearded dude?
Really? Huh.
