(06-10-2019, 01:19 PM)cincydawg Wrote:

(06-10-2019, 01:11 PM)BoyGenius Wrote:

(06-10-2019, 01:08 PM)cincydawg Wrote: Are Christians somehow supposed to be sacrosanct and not subject to mockery and vitriol?

There you go again... advertising your ignorance about The Bible.

In what way?  You seem to think you should not be subject to vitriol and mockery around here as if you are special.

And I never claimed to have any unusual or deep knowledge of the Bible.  I have read it, a long while back.  It made no sense to me.  And explanations of weird stuff make no sense to me either.  If stating that is vitriolic mockery, so be it.

I don't take umbrage at being called ignorant either.

Currently, I am subject. That is not in my control. I control my response to it. That's where your confusion exists. You seem to have a predetermined notion how a "good Christian" would respond to such vitriol and mockery... which is smile and nod, bend over, and take it. I'm not that guy.

Yes, you take umbrage to being called ill informed. You say you don't, but you do.

I thought Christians were expected to evangelize and convince others of the rightness of their ways.

I also thought it claimed there was abundant evidence for the Christian God somewhere, something akin to how Lucifer has evidence.

I'm picking at folks who claim there is a lot of evidence and then never mention it.

There isn't. And I pick at folks who post illogical nonsense here and will continue to do so.

(06-10-2019, 01:29 PM)BoyGenius Wrote:

(06-10-2019, 01:19 PM)cincydawg Wrote:

(06-10-2019, 01:11 PM)BoyGenius Wrote:

(06-10-2019, 01:08 PM)cincydawg Wrote: Are Christians somehow supposed to be sacrosanct and not subject to mockery and vitriol?

There you go again... advertising your ignorance about The Bible.

In what way?  You seem to think you should not be subject to vitriol and mockery around here as if you are special.

And I never claimed to have any unusual or deep knowledge of the Bible.  I have read it, a long while back.  It made no sense to me.  And explanations of weird stuff make no sense to me either.  If stating that is vitriolic mockery, so be it.

I don't take umbrage at being called ignorant either.

Currently, I am subject. That is not in my control. I control my response to it. That's where your confusion exists. You seem to have a predetermined notion how a "good Christian" would respond to such vitriol and mockery... which is smile and nod, bend over, and take it. I'm not that guy.

Yes, you take umbrage to being called ill informed. You say you don't, but you do.

(06-10-2019, 01:30 PM)cincydawg Wrote: I thought Christians were expected to evangelize and convince others of the rightness of their ways.

Again, you'd be wrong. "Shake the dust/sand off your feet/sandals"... directly contradicts your woeful level of ignorance and now amateurish level of trolling.

Being called "ill informed" by some is a complement, or at least a small bit of entertainment.

I notice folks don't want to discuss evidence for the Christian God.

They seem more interested in distractions to change the thread to something else, which is understandable.

(06-10-2019, 01:38 PM)cincydawg Wrote: I notice folks don't want to discuss evidence for the Christian God.

They seem more interested in distractions to change the thread to something else, which is understandable.

I'll gladly discuss the evidence and The Bible with anyone who is interested.

How many threads over the years have been about this topic of evidence? Manuscripts? Landmarks? Translations? The Flood?
It's clear you need to look elsewhere for evidence or contact others who are more educated than the collective Christians here.

(06-10-2019, 01:30 PM)cincydawg Wrote: I thought Christians were expected to evangelize and convince others of the rightness of their ways.

I also thought it claimed there was abundant evidence for the Christian God somewhere, something akin to how Lucifer has evidence.

Your first thought is wrong.....

Your second thought is correct.  It just doesn't meet the Cincy standard of evidence.  After years of having this conversation, I suspect nothing will.

(06-10-2019, 01:38 PM)cincydawg Wrote: I notice folks don't want to discuss evidence for the Christian God.

They seem more interested in distractions to change the thread to something else, which is understandable.

Like the comments about the FBI/Domestic terrorism deal, evidence has been given.  You've dismissed it and continued your commentary like it doesn't exist.

When that happens, discussion can't continue.  It just can't.  

When did the crucifixion happen?  Was it Wednesday?  Was it Thursday?  Was it Friday? How many whales were on the ark?  I thought you said two of every kind were on the ark.....Were there fleas on the ark?  What is the evidence of a Christian God?  That isn't evidence, I want real evidence.....

And around, and around, and around we go.....I've seen you curious for information.  You aren't curious.  The only other rational explanation is that you are passively mocking.  Which is fine, that's your prerogative.  But don't get injured when it's called out.

(06-10-2019, 01:36 PM)cincydawg Wrote: Being called "ill informed" by some is a complement, or at least a small bit of entertainment.

You're a joke.  You say such things but it bothers you... it kills you that the lowly BG bests you time and time again.
Why else would you stalk me, setting your "gotcha" traps that repeatedly fail. Latest...  AOC and terrorism laws.
Have you learned the difference between... Connotation and Denotation?

I don't think it meets ANY standard of evidence.

And of course I was definitely taught we were supposed to go out and evangelize and convince others of the rightness of our views, but that's another example I imagine of how denominations interpret things differently.

I've been interested in Catholicism and how much it differs from Baptist beliefs. To me, it's almost like being a different religion. Mormonism is more different of course, and there are some other branches that are more different than these two.

If someone is interested in say atomic theory, I can provide evidence for it that I think it pretty compelling. It's not direct evidence as we can't see the structure of an atom with our unaided eyes, but the indirect evidence is quite strong, obviously. I think any rational person would agree after seeing it that current atomic theory is on solid grounds. If there is another explanation for the evidence we observe, no one has developed it yet. And there could be a different theory, I don't have one obviously.

Evidence is something that can be used to convince, as in a trial, or in discussing some topic, it is observable and consistent and "solid" in the sense it connects with other evidence. Of course there is some sparse evidence for something like the Lock Ness monster. It's not that there is zero evidence, there is some, but the old saw is that extraordinary findings require extraordrnary proof.

If the existence of God is a matter of Faith, fine, but if someone claims there is evidence, it seems they should provide it instead of claiming it exists and is compelling but without offering a single example.

(06-10-2019, 01:58 PM)cincydawg Wrote: I don't think it meets ANY standard of evidence.

And of course I was definitely taught we were supposed to go out and evangelize and convince others of the rightness of our views, but that's another example I imagine of how denominations interpret things differently.

I've been interested in Catholicism and how much it differs from Baptist beliefs.  To me, it's almost like being a different religion.  Mormonism is more different of course, and there are some other branches that are more different than these two.

We know you like comparing denominations. We've gone round and round with that one too.
Convince others? I chuckled. Christians aren't commanded "to convince others".
You were taught incorrectly. Have you actually read The Bible?

Matthew 10:13-15... " if the home is worthy, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

(06-10-2019, 02:04 PM)cincydawg Wrote: If someone is interested in say atomic theory, I can provide evidence for it that I think it pretty compelling.  It's not direct evidence as we can't see the structure of an atom with our unaided eyes, but the indirect evidence is quite strong, obviously.  I think any rational person would agree after seeing it that current atomic theory is on solid grounds.  If there is another explanation for the evidence we observe, no one has developed it yet.  And there could be a different theory, I don't have one obviously.

Evidence is something that can be used to convince, as in a trial, or in discussing some topic, it is observable and consistent and "solid" in the sense it connects with other evidence.  Of course there is some sparse evidence for something like the Lock Ness monster.  It's not that there is zero evidence, there is some, but the old saw is that extraordinary findings require extraordrnary proof.

If the existence of God is a matter of Faith, fine, but if someone claims there is evidence, it seems they should provide it instead of claiming it exists and is compelling but without offering a single example.

More games. Compelling? Don't be so disingenuous. No one cares what you consider compelling.