The meaning of "meaning"

By just a few writers in a small period of time. Perhaps you could demonstrate this so-called continuity over a variety of topics and moral themes. My guess is that you cannot Regardless of who accepted what at any given time, the themes of those will be practically the same in content I agree and that is why right off the bat, the Bibles discription of God is consistent over the long passage of time as to his nature character and make-up. eternal, omniscient, etc.The Bibles idea of God confroms to reason and logic and that is just the starting pointSecondly and on topic the scriptures themes of meaning and purpose conform more to reality that any nonsense in greek mythologyYou will be hard pressed to find any writings or revelations that have more specific purpose that that which claims inspiration from a logical God of existence, than the bibles God and purposesSince you brought it up, ill present this point. Why dont we spend any time here talking about the gods of mythology or the so-called meaning in those writings? Here's why, because we all know them to be myth to begin with, that is why. Not so with the BibleIn modern times we dont discuss the events in the book of Mormon, because we know they did not happen, neither are the characters, places and peoples valis or real.we dont discuss them in detail because we know they were myth. Not sowith the Bible, because there is much reason and evidence to assume those evenst actually happened and took place.If you truely thought they were myth you would not be spending alot of time trying to refute it, as i would not the book of mormonAnyone that cannot see a vast distinction between the Bible and those writings is not paying very close attentionEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ill resate my case again and maybe this time you will pay attention to it.The God of the Bible is described and follows what logic would dictate concerning his make-up. The things you describe are from your imagination.it stands to reason that inspiration would reveal him as such.perhaps you could defend your case with scripture instead of assertion Yes by a few writers not dealing withthe same issues, even the ones concerning the nature of God. The are riddled with inconsistency and stupidity concerning morals. the Gods themselves of that nonsense are a logical andmoral jokePlease try again or be specific.I think you know why we dont discuss that nonsense. atleast the book of Mormon attempts legitimacy but it fails in historicity and thats why we discuss neither here.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not at all. What of my verbage would suggest it ok wrong, I do Thats why its faulty. One can easily and lgically demonstrate the existence of God I know. Evolution follows this same principle. You can only demonstrate the probable reality of it, you cant show me evolution, yet you believe firmly that it happened, correct? Diddo. thats why I accept a old universe and earth and reject biological evolution. Or perhaps you would like to show me what happened 10 to 60 million years ago. Now remember Im not looking for tentative deducted information, I wont to see it HAAPENING BACK THENI think you see your ugly ass delimma, correct?What you speak so confidently about in your methodology, falls prey to the same limitations. You couldnt actually demonstrate biological evolution from the begining, but you believe it without question.Why?My method of demonstrating the existence of God, his word and his MEANINGS is just as acurate and you know itDawn Bertot-----Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ah, you have to love the neophite. while it is true that the bible was not always in one place all together at the same time, the knowledge contained in the Gospels, acts and epistles was made known by verbal inspiration, oral tradition and gifts of inspiration.Until such time as inspiration brought that knowledge into one canon.Secondly, a person does not need to have and possess every moral principle set out in the Word of God, to be a child of GodAt times some had more than others, but that is not the point. The point is that it is consistent in its teachings and meanings, idicating inspirational involvement wrong. as the prolific Guy N Woods demonstrates, there was a time in the past when a group or groups of people rejected Gods initial words and decided to go thier own direction. This sets in motion and opens the door for misrepresentation and confusion.there was a time when the truth or morals were known from God absolutley, rejection of that knowledge set up the confusion and discord Inspired or not, that passage when taken into consideration with what the entire scriptures says will demonstrate that the writer is not speaking about an imaginary place called prugatory. he doesnt even suggest that idea.Notice that catholicism extrapolates that idea from the writerDawn bertot

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Finally, after all these miserable failures!!!!!Let's see it! I really would like to see this!

Your excitability is premature because its preceeded by an assumed and possibly false presuposition. Arent you assuming they were failured attempts. Give me an example of one of these failed attempts in argument form and lest see if its a failure, before I rehash old stuffDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed.demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it isDawn Bertot

sorry pouble dostEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed.demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is And it doesnt make sense to to say someone is not making a claim when they spent countless hours and argumentation trying to refute what positive evidence is clearly presented.Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning.Ill try again
I dont mean to be cruel but this type of resoning is whyi believe you are where you are at in your thinking BluejayNever in my days have i see such simple things twisted to the point of absurdity.Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itselfSaying its not a claim doesnt make it not a claim. developing some nonsensical verbage to make it not a claim, does not make it not a claim.its claim is not that the being does not exists, but that the positive side has failed to demonstrated it. Yet the arguments and evidence are as valid as ever.yet on your line of reasoning about claimsand on this premise alone we may reject any so-called evidence to support evoluion or its tenative conclusions, because they have falied to demonstrate ityou dont follow that line of reasoning for evolution, why would you interject it in any other logical argumentDawn BertotDawn Bertot

When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed.demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is And it doesnt make sense to to say someone is not making a claim when they spent countless hours and argumentation trying to refute what positive evidence is clearly presented.Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning.Ill try again
I dont mean to be cruel but this type of resoning is whyi believe you are where you are at in your thinking BluejayNever in my days have i see such simple things twisted to the point of absurdity.Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itselfSaying its not a claim doesnt make it not a claim. developing some nonsensical verbage to make it not a claim, does not make it not a claim.its claim is not that the being does not exists, but that the positive side has failed to demonstrated it. Yet the arguments and evidence are as valid as ever.yet on your line of reasoning about claimsand on this premise alone we may reject any so-called evidence to support evoluion or its tenative conclusions, because they have falied to demonstrate ityou dont follow that line of reasoning for evolution, why would you interject it in any other logical argument. You believe evolution is true and demonstrateable based on what you consider evidence, yet cannot show any person the actual past evenst of the actual so-called events that you believe took placeBut according to your line of reasoning about evidence, it would amount to no evidence and it not being demonstratable.its seems this line of reasoning almost forces you to take a side, not about atheism or theism but this strawman of and argument about evidence, claims and meaningDawn BertotDawn Bertot

I think anyone that knows me here knows I do not dodge answering questions, but so I dont rehash old stuff you think is failed, go ahead and present and example of a failed attempt since you ASSUME they are all failuresi dont think you understand the difference in failure and absolute proof. lets seeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

sorry for the confusion I am EAM/DAWN BERTOT That was not intentional. When I go to use my lab top at another location, I couldnt get my password to work and when i requested my password to it said it was sent but I could never find it or it wouldnt work.I have very little patience with technical nusancesdbEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

yo
we are fine with presenting evidence to support the existence of God if the same rules are applied to that line of reasoning which is applied say to the concept of biological evolution.To demonstrate my point i will ask you a simple question.
Is biological evolution a demonstratable fact, yes or no.if yes, what rules of evidence would you put forth to suggest it is actually a demonstratable fact, since we did not and cannot see it actually happeninglets see what your rules of evidence are, notice i did not say evidence but rules of evidence. How will you proceed to demonstrate to me that which you absolutley believe and believe you can demonstrate.i submit you dont understand what rules of proceeding or what constitutes actual evidenceMy point is that we are not avoiding answering or demonstrating anything, but to demonstrate that you have a whole set of rules for yourself and then one for us, in a weak attempt to show we can not demonstrate our pointsfirst things firstDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

please dont view these as insults. view me as say a drill instructor trying to get you to think for yourself. Your using borrowed, concepts, ideologies, points that are not sound. here is an example: No it is not. Atheism has no definition that can be measured, like just about any other word. Atheism is defined by what type of person is using it and for what purposes they are using itYour usage and definiton of what atheism is ori s not is only a part of the REALITY of what atheism is or can be. Thus by limiting a word to a strict definition or one that suits your purposes, one flies into false idea of what is actually required of that class of personWords are measured by physical realities, we dont measure reality by wordsThus you have built your whole premise about whatanyone needs to defend or not defend on a false concept, definition and idea.Its not sound to begin with Of course I undertand the difference, but you are doing again what i was speaking about above. This distinction is really no distinction at all, since you are claiming and trying to refute the evidence anyone puts forward in an argument formThis slight distinction or as I would call it evasion, avoids the reality of simple point counter pointSo there is a certain amount of ambiguity and evasion in trying to point out that atheism makes no claims and has nothing to defend.Your using concepts terms and ideas to avoid the REALITY, that if they insist it is false, they are obligated to demonstrate why in a logical formThis why I said in the previous post. Show and define what your RULES of proceeding and RULES of evidence are.Evidence for the existence of God are or should be as simple as the rules for establishing the fact of evolution, correct?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Come on dont be a coward, tell me what your rules of evidence are simpletonDawn Bertot