Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseB5446
No. I have'nt and I don't speak like I have and that was my point. That was a reply directed at Lucifer Sam saying "no where in the Bible are the pearly gates mentioned", when they clearly are. So has he studied it and is just lying or referencing something that he's not studied or maybe remembered it incorrectly? IDK, but in any case, it was wrong.
|
No, you were replying to Lucifer Sam for saying that and Right Track for saying people who take the Bible literally should be beaten (paraphrasing). Your reply: "I'd be wiiling to bet that the majority of the non-believers in this forum have not read a Bible since the last time they fell asleep in church Easter Sunday umpteen years ago. How does one base his faith on a subject he's never studied? I'm not talking about reading it to pull out all the arguable pieces, but really studied it. We are talking about your eternal soul, maybe, right?"
You challenged Pascal's Wager. Rather than simply saying "if you haven't read it properly, don't make claims about it" you instead brought up the Wager which is a whole other kettle of fish. "How does one base his faith on a subject he's never studied?" - have you studied all religious texts? How can you find a grounding for your faith, upon your own stipulations, if you haven't REALLY researched the other religions to ensure they're truly bunk?
If you didn't mean to raise Pascal's Wager you should've phrased it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseB5446
News travels fast. Bullsh!t travels faster. BTW, I'm a dude.
|
Yah, but you've got a girls name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseB5446
Amen, brother. I agree wholeheartedly and if you would have actually read what I said instead of chomping at the bit for your chance to rip into a believer, than you would have caught the "because there is no proof" section. I was speaking to those saying "seeing is believing".
|
You'll have to excuse me. It appears you don't grasp the English language in the same fashion that I do. Maybe look up "non sequitur"? The point I was making was that "seeing is believing" (or more to the point seeking some form of valid empirical evidence) is valid to use regarding the existence of God due to it's nature as a described entity with actions taken. Love is completely separate, it's a human emotion. Plenty of people don't believe it and everyone's understanding of the word is different. So, your example is irrelevant.