Real quick, here is some PROOF

[GAB]

Hi, Josh,
From what I read about your profile, you are young and trying to convey your point with older and wiser persons. You are not doing the best job, but for your age you are at least hanging in there.

Keep an open mind, read what others have to offer, and learn from your elders.

Regards, Gary

 

[parmandjack]

go to one of those Churches, ask someone there about it.

Nope. You've said you have proof...don't pawn it off on those churches or expect us to take the time to go there. YOU provide the proof, lad. So far you've done nothing but preach.

Here's the rub, Josh. You and another person in the forum, Parmandjack, claimed evidence or proof to back up your beliefs. We're still waiting for it.


Regards,


Steve

Lets keep the facts straight steve, I provided you all with several links to hundereds of fulfilled old testament prochecies, as well as named several modern day fulfillments of bible prophesies, as well as provided you with substantial evidence as tho the validity of the bible through historical (and readily verifyable) manuscript evidences...

You and your associates simply chose to dismiss it...

...thats fine, but dont argue that no evidence has been forth coming...

...and a side note... referring to Josh as "lad" in the manner in which you do, is quite condescending and simply is an attempt to set bias against his credibility simply due to his age, whatever that may be...

 

[Mark Weiser]

okay here goes another shot over the bow sort of speak.

Here are some of the main reasons why Jesus can not be the Messiah as seen by the Jewish People.

• He must be Jewish (Deut 17:15 & Num 24:17_
• He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chron 17:11, Ps 89:29-38, Jere 33:17, II Sam 7:12-16) and King Solomon (I Chron 22:10, II Chron 7:18)
• He must gather the Jewish People from exile and return them to Israel. (Isa 27:12-13, Isa 11:12)
• He must rebuild the temple in Jersusalem (Micah 4:1)
• He must bring world peace (Isa 2:4, Isa 11:6, Micah 4:3)
• He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d/ (Isa 11:9, Isa 40:5, Zeph 3:9)

These criteria for the Messiah is found in Ezekiel 37:24-28

This is just a starting point looking forward to the banter lol.

 

[Scout_379]

...and a side note... referring to Josh as "lad" in the manner in which you do, is quite condescending and simply is an attempt to set bias against his credibility simply due to his age, whatever that may be...

uhhh...ok
...from my personal experience... the bias is... justified.

Lets keep the facts straight steve, I provided you all with several links to hundereds of fulfilled old testament prochecies, as well as named several modern day fulfillments of bible prophesies, as well as provided you with substantial evidence as tho the validity of the bible through historical (and readily verifyable) manuscript evidences...

You were told repeatedly that the source cannot prove itself...ie: what was written in the bible (your prophecies) cannot be proven by other writings from the bible. The source cannot prove the source!

You and your associates simply chose to dismiss it...

you are the one who ignored them, and refused to provide any evidence outside of biblical sources!

 

[bignick]

maybe it's cause it's midnight and i've been up since 5:30 a.m.....maybe it's because i've spent the last 4-5 hours pouring over technical computer networking material...

either way...when reading this thread...i'm utterly confused as to what Josh's is trying to do/say

 

[qizmoduis]

"Speaking in Tonguest" --> glossolalia

An excerpt from an article at infidels.org:

Speaking in tongues known in psychological jargon as glossolalia is an ancient practice, mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 2:1-4), and recurring in Christian revivals through the ages. Modern analysis, however shows that it is actually "linguistic nonsense." A professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, William T. Samarin, conducted an exhaustive five-year study of the phenomenon on several continents and concluded:

Glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly. The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudolanguage in the form of words and sentences.

Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.

Samarin also noted that according to more than half of the glossolalists he studied, it was easier to speak in tongues than in ordinary language. "You don't have to think just let the words flow. One minister said he could 'go on forever: it's just like drumming.'"

The full article is http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/miracles.html

Speaking gibberish, IMO is not a miracle. I would think that if a deity such as described in the Christian texts actually existed, it would be able to imbue a speaker with the ability to speak in a language that could be understood. Or, it could make any language understandable to any listener. THAT would be something.

 

[MisterMike]

Matthew 4:7 ''Do not put the Lord your God to the test"

I wish all this would stop, and people would start behaving a little more according to the doctrines of professional martial artists.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

All what would stop? Questioning?

 

[michaeledward]

I am wondering where I could find a copy of the 'Doctrine of Professional Martial Artists?' Is that something like the Hyppocratic Oath?

 

[MisterMike]

OK, let me rephrase. Common Courtesy.

Last I checked it was a pillar of most MA schools philosophy, but 50% of these posts are attacks on a young man's faith and character.

Good job.

 

[loki09789]

OK, let me rephrase. Common Courtesy.

Last I checked it was a pillar of most MA schools philosophy, but 50% of these posts are attacks on a young man's faith and character.

Good job.

I think the friction is that the "proof" issue. These are 'signs' that people can choose to recognize as indicators of xyz idea/existence or not. They may be 'proof' to him, but not 'proof' in an absolute sense. Of course if folks are wrong and he is right....

 

[Feisty Mouse]

OK, let me rephrase. Common Courtesy.

Last I checked it was a pillar of most MA schools philosophy, but 50% of these posts are attacks on a young man's faith and character.

Good job.

So if someone attacks my faith, I cannot stand up for what *I* believe in?

 

[MisterMike]

So if someone attacks my faith, I cannot stand up for what *I* believe in?

Sure. But how you arrived at that question from:

OK, let me rephrase. Common Courtesy.

Last I checked it was a pillar of most MA schools philosophy, but 50% of these posts are attacks on a young man's faith and character.

is a little confusing.

Since you're interested, lets look at:

rmcrobertson: Hey, Josh...you and all the other sadistic Christians

and

Josh, I was simply adverting to the hatred and lack of compassion that is screamingly evident

WOW. So calling Christians sadistic does not equal hatred?

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka: Thank you for revealing the depths of not only your personal psychoses, but your lack of comprehension

and

SenseiBear: hey kid, you have fun shake, rattling, and rolling your way, I'll have fun mine

It's no surprise, but there were still people wondering why others were calling for some moderation:

kenpo tiger
MODERATOR!!!!

This thread too - I'm gone.

Comments like these from "Dr.'s" and "Sensei's". Sorry but if THAT REALLY IS YOUR LEVEL of maturity, just let it go guys.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

MisterMike, I wasn't referring to what others wrote, but what I have said in the various "prove a religion" threads.

I usually respect anyone's belief who is a) not trying to harm other people and b) who can talk respectfully to others.

When I'm told that I'm ignorant or wrong, so that someone else can "prove" their faith, I will step up and defend my own beliefs.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, gee, let's see.

This is a poster who got on, began screaming at everybody about the way their lack of faith would send them to burn in hell, announced that nobody else's religion mattered, threw in a few backhand swats at, "Jews," and pretty much continued on that same way.

Hm.

And yes, I do stand behind the comment that any God who'd stick people in fire for eternity merely over their form of worship is a sick God, and any soul that would cheerfully sit around in Heaven with their feet up and enjoy the idea of billions suffering in eternal torment is sick and sadistic.

Call me just the AWFULLEST guy, but I tend to get a little testy when people start screeching about their salvation and my damnation--just as I tend to get testy when people who have in the past fired off as much rudeness and insult as they can come up with start lecturing me about good manners and spiritual development in the martial arts.

Ya want good manners? Fine. Turn off Michael Savage, and display some. I will cheerfully respond in kind.

 

[MisterMike]

OK, that's fine and dandy, but like the guy on the corner with fistfulls of flyers and 50,000 pins on his jacket screaming REPENT!, we can also ignore what we don't want to hear. I don't think the "sermons" given thus far were worthy of the responses, even given the sensitivity of the subject.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

OK, that's fine and dandy, but like the guy on the corner with fistfulls of flyers and 50,000 pins on his jacket screaming REPENT!, we can also ignore what we don't want to hear. I don't think the "sermons" given thus far were worthy of the responses, even given the sensitivity of the subject.

Given that he did come onto the board spouting off about how his beliefs prove things and that we're all going to hell, etc., I see nothing wrong with others accusing him of folly. That's part of discussion, especially on religious issues.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Lets keep the facts straight steve, I provided you all with several links to hundereds of fulfilled old testament prochecies, as well as named several modern day fulfillments of bible prophesies, as well as provided you with substantial evidence as tho the validity of the bible through historical (and readily verifyable) manuscript evidences...

And it was pointed out that a text can not validate itself.

...thats fine, but dont argue that no evidence has been forth coming...

Because a text can not validate itself.

...and a side note... referring to Josh as "lad" in the manner in which you do, is quite condescending and simply is an attempt to set bias against his credibility simply due to his age, whatever that may be...

This from a master of condescension?

Josh is thirty years my junior, Parmandjack. He describes himself as "a youngster" in his profile. I often address younger people thus, and without condescension.

I think it unlikely that I have the power to bring a bias against Josh. I've long thought that most people have the capacity to think for themselves and aren't that malleable or easily swayed by the things that they read.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic.


Regards,


Steve

 

[loki09789]

OK, that's fine and dandy, but like the guy on the corner with fistfulls of flyers and 50,000 pins on his jacket screaming REPENT!, we can also ignore what we don't want to hear. I don't think the "sermons" given thus far were worthy of the responses, even given the sensitivity of the subject.

I am no grand example of 'perfect balance' in my responses by any means, I have to agree with MM's point that we can not control the information or message, but we can control how we respond to it....

I respect the passionate desire for self improvement (through a path of faith in this case) even if I don't agree with the tone, mood or 'evidence of proof' that is presented.

The problem with any orthodoxy, practice/process argument that I find is that the argument isn't about how we bring faith to life as a positive influence but how we differ on things so that we can feel superior or cut someone else down because they are 'wrong.'

I can only change myself, I can influence others (only if they let me) so I tend to try and see the "god in people" or the divinity/good side as much as I can.

The rest is between you and your religious views and higher power (how ever you choose to ID it).

 

[rmcrobertson]

When somebody wants to discuss religion and philosophies, I got no problem. When somebody announces, VERY LOUDLY, that everybody but them is wrong, stupid and hell-bound--and throws in a few remarks about, "Jews," to boot--at leat one conversational glove comes right off.

But then, even Gandalf got testy with bigotry:

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

"Fearing for your own safety." Exactly, exactly. And precisely the right rejoinder to ALL the text-thumpers and sunshine soldiers, and all their thrilled recitations of how this sinner or that fellow traveller is gonna get it.