Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Brian E. Clark on 17 Jul 2008 17:47 In article <23670b9d-8fb6-411c-82d0-8611a54d3d62 @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rbwinn said... > Well, the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel was very remarkable. Why do you resort to crass equivocation? You know perfectly well what the previous poster meant when he referred to "the SPECIAL claims in the bible, not the ordinary mundane things such as tunnels, sheep, goats or shekels." No tunnel, no matter the engineering brilliance behind its construction, is special in that sense. -- ----------- Brian E. Clark
From: Brian E. Clark on 17 Jul 2008 17:48 In article <1216109922.20308.0 @proxy02.news.clara.net>, The Natural Philosopher said... > surely its oral - as in spoken - rather than aural, as in > heard..tradition..? Actually, many scholars speak about the "oral/aural" traditions in preliterate societies. -- ----------- Brian E. Clark
From: James Burns on 17 Jul 2008 19:20 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 16, 7:39 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>And yet the minds that demonstrably don't deal with >>reality are christians. Please do keep up. > > Atheists are the people who are trying to make the > Bible disappear. And yet, you do more in a day of your posting "to make the Bible disappear" then any atheist does in a year or ten years -- by making it look like you have to be a fool or a scoundrel to be a Christian. Jim Burns : Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing : for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably : giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking : nonsense on these topics; and we should take : all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, : in which people show up vast ignorance in a : Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not : so much that an ignorant individual is derided, : but that people outside the household of faith : think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, : to the great loss of those for whose salvation we : toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized : and rejected as unlearned men. from /The Literal Meaning of Genesis/ /(De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)/, St. Augustine, trans. JH Taylor, /Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 41/ (Newman Press, 1982)
From: Alex W. on 17 Jul 2008 19:44 "The Loan Arranger" <noone(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:5d-dnbl8Ndd98eLVRVnyvgA(a)bt.com... > Smiler wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> > The only writer of the new Testament who was a Roman citizen was Paul. >> ================================ >> All the writers were Roman citizens. > > I'm sorry to say, Smiler, Robbie's probably right for once. Roman > Citizenship was distinct from being a citizen of a country under Roman > jurisdiction, and was very hard to earn. > > What I'm unsure about is whether he was a full Roman Citizen, or whether > he held the Latin Right, which was a kind of halfway-house between > non-citizenship and being a full Citizen. Ordinary people in a subjugated > country probably wouldn't really appreciate the difference, or could be > blinded to it. It wasn't uncommon for LR holders to claim to their peers > to be RCs, to enhance their standing, but they definitely wouldn't try > that to an official, at least not if they valued their life or position. http://www.jgames.co.uk/title/Roman_citizenship Luke may or may not have been a Roman citizen; there is even speculation that he had been a slave, in which case he certainly would not have been a full citizen. Being natives of Palestine, it seems unlikely that Mark or Matthew had been full citizens.
From: Smiler on 16 Jul 2008 21:23
"Ben Dolan" <ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com> wrote in message news:1ik5w02.g6o20wrzx7npN%ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com... > rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > >> Europeans are very existential. > > How do you manage to tie your shoes, child? Slip-ons, velcro or his mother ties the laces. I want to know how he can tell which one goes on which foot. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |