cuchulain Posted November 11, 2018 Report Share Posted November 11, 2018 On 11/6/2018 at 10:47 PM, Stormbringer said: 1. You have not defined "true" 2. You actually made the initial claim that God did not speak through a burning bush. Therefore the onus is upon you to provide evidence of your claims. If you cannot that is fine but nobody is under any obligation to disprove your claims. Reread, please. My initial claim was that I had never seen a burning bush. Do I need to really prove that I didn't see something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted November 11, 2018 Report Share Posted November 11, 2018 On 11/10/2018 at 10:32 AM, Songster said: I thought I had posted a reply to this post a couple weeks ago... evidently my lengthy response was not entered (or perhaps deleted?). First of all, your inference that I have been purposely misleading or dishonest is insulting and indicative of the inferior caliber of your character... I offered a plausible explanation for the "burning bush". You're free to discount whatever you desire, but your denial in no way negates the facts that a plant may indeed ignite and burn without being consumed. I did not claim that the plant itself was capable of vocalizing anything. God spoke to Moses from WITHIN the bush... Your inability to consider the possibility that YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING does not in any way negate the account as written, nor does it affect my views (or that of millions of others). Your ignorance may be excusable... Your arrogance and ill-mannered attitude is not. You believe that making the statement, "God spoke through the bush" is a plausible explanation of the event, or in any way proof that the event occurred? I disagree. You believe I am ill mannered and ignorant? Well...good for you. I am glad to see you aren't in any way rude, or demeaning with your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted November 11, 2018 Report Share Posted November 11, 2018 There is a large problem in a forum where one member can repeatedly call the other mentally ill, ignorant, arrogant, and ill mannered...yet the moderator takes a stance against the offended member by stating "you didn't define true." True...as defined by the dictionary, for those who know me and my posts often see that I quote that book...True: in accordance with fact and reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabbiO Posted November 11, 2018 Report Share Posted November 11, 2018 On October 23, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Dan56 said: He said from the burning bush; " I Am That I Am " (Exodus 3:14). I'm positive this was brought up before, but let's go over this one more time. In the Exodus 3:14, G-d says that he is Eheyeh asher Eheyeh - I will be what I will be. There is no present tense verb in biblical Hebrew for is/am/are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Songster Posted November 12, 2018 Report Share Posted November 12, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, cuchulain said: You believe that making the statement, "God spoke through the bush" is a plausible explanation of the event, or in any way proof that the event occurred? I disagree. You believe I am ill mannered and ignorant? Well...good for you. I am glad to see you aren't in any way rude, or demeaning with your posts. 5 hours ago, cuchulain said: There is a large problem in a forum where one member can repeatedly call the other mentally ill, ignorant, arrogant, and ill mannered...yet the moderator takes a stance against the offended member by stating "you didn't define true." True...as defined by the dictionary, for those who know me and my posts often see that I quote that book...True: in accordance with fact and reality. For the record.... “Ignorance” is defined as “lacking knowledge or awareness about something in particular. ”... You stated in a previous post, “...I don’t know.” (That is an admission of ignorance, is it not?) “Ill-mannered” is synonymous with "bad mannered, rude, impolite, etc..." Your inference that I was being disingenuous and/or purposefully misleading in my responses in this topic is arrogant behavior and, in effect, calling me a “liar”. (Calling someone a “liar” is generally considered rude and “ill-mannered”, is it not?) Finally, as for your assertion that I ever expressed any doubts about the status of your mental health... I had not previously considered the possibility, but given your irrational response to my posts, that might be something you should look into..... Edited November 12, 2018 by Songster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 On 11/11/2018 at 11:20 PM, Songster said: For the record.... “Ignorance” is defined as “lacking knowledge or awareness about something in particular. ”... You stated in a previous post, “...I don’t know.” (That is an admission of ignorance, is it not?) “Ill-mannered” is synonymous with "bad mannered, rude, impolite, etc..." Your inference that I was being disingenuous and/or purposefully misleading in my responses in this topic is arrogant behavior and, in effect, calling me a “liar”. (Calling someone a “liar” is generally considered rude and “ill-mannered”, is it not?) Finally, as for your assertion that I ever expressed any doubts about the status of your mental health... I had not previously considered the possibility, but given your irrational response to my posts, that might be something you should look into..... It was deleted after i reported the comment about my mental health. Is it a lie, then, that you never considered it? And still got the deflectors going strong about showing where you posted plausible evidence that god spoke through a bush...because you didn't. Which is initially why i said you weren't being honest in your argument. At least i attack the position instead of the person, as per forum guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Songster Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 I wish I could view the post, as I do not recall making any reference to your mental health... As for your demand for "plausible proof"... I'm not going to waste my time. You've made up your mind, and I have doubts that you would accept it if God were to appear before you and speak for Himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 You repeat often that you've provided plausible proof, but thats dishonest. You've repeatedly deflected when pressed for that proof and give nothing but personal attacks. A great candidate for ignore, as this useless exchange proves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 1 hour ago, cuchulain said: You repeat often that you've provided plausible proof, but thats dishonest. You've repeatedly deflected when pressed for that proof and give nothing but personal attacks. A great candidate for ignore, as this useless exchange proves. But it has not been a "useless exchange." I have learned much about you and Songster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted November 14, 2018 Report Share Posted November 14, 2018 On 11/11/2018 at 4:59 PM, RabbiO said: I'm positive this was brought up before, but let's go over this one more time. In the Exodus 3:14, G-d says that he is Eheyeh asher Eheyeh - I will be what I will be. There is no present tense verb in biblical Hebrew for is/am/are. So God's name in Exodus 3:14 is "I will be" (ehyeh), and not "I AM" (YHVH)? The second half of the verse says; "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.".. It doesn't make sense if it reads "I WILL BE hath sent me unto you."? Perhaps "I AM" is a verb inclusive of past, present, and future tense? "I AM has sent me unto you" (present tense), Verse 15; "The LORD God of your fathers" (past tense), "this is my name for ever" (future tense). God is Alpha and Omega (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 22:13), "I AM" comprises past, present, and future, while 'I will be' is limited to the future. As Jesus put it; "Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted November 14, 2018 Report Share Posted November 14, 2018 9 hours ago, cuchulain said: You repeat often that you've provided plausible proof, but thats dishonest. You've repeatedly deflected when pressed for that proof and give nothing but personal attacks. A great candidate for ignore, as this useless exchange proves. There's no proof of a talking bush, only an explanation that the bush was not literally speaking, but that the voice was the spirit of God emanating from the bush.. Moses was either telling the truth or he found some magic mushrooms on that hill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted November 14, 2018 Report Share Posted November 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Dan56 said: There's no proof of a talking bush, only an explanation that the bush was not literally speaking, but that the voice was the spirit of God emanating from the bush.. Moses was either telling the truth or he found some magic mushrooms on that hill Or -- it never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted November 15, 2018 Report Share Posted November 15, 2018 Either way, having the explanation doesnt make it plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark 45 Posted November 15, 2018 Report Share Posted November 15, 2018 On 11/14/2018 at 1:18 AM, Dan56 said: So God's name in Exodus 3:14 is "I will be" (ehyeh), and not "I AM" (YHVH)? The second half of the verse says; "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.".. It doesn't make sense if it reads "I WILL BE hath sent me unto you."? Perhaps "I AM" is a verb inclusive of past, present, and future tense? "I AM has sent me unto you" (present tense), Verse 15; "The LORD God of your fathers" (past tense), "this is my name for ever" (future tense). God is Alpha and Omega (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 22:13), "I AM" comprises past, present, and future, while 'I will be' is limited to the future. As Jesus put it; "Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58). i would be inclined to believe rabbi o when it comes to hebrew.not everything translates into english as we understand it.and keep in mind the translator of the king james bible made a boatload of mistakes,and that is with what is included in the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted November 16, 2018 Report Share Posted November 16, 2018 3 hours ago, cuchulain said: Either way, having the explanation doesnt make it plausible. In this story, very little is plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted November 17, 2018 Report Share Posted November 17, 2018 On 11/15/2018 at 5:47 PM, mark 45 said: i would be inclined to believe rabbi o when it comes to hebrew.not everything translates into english as we understand it.and keep in mind the translator of the king james bible made a boatload of mistakes,and that is with what is included in the bible. Actually, the Strong's Concordance to the KJV translates it as RabbiO said; "I will be what i will be (or become)"... Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I am" or "I will be". The ancient Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 " Ehyeh asher ehyeh ", lacks a future tense as modern English does, yet a few translations render this name as "I Will Be What I Will Be". Given the context of YHVH promising to be with His people through their future troubles, both the literal present-tense "I Am" and the future-tense "I wll be" might be applicable. For myself, I AM covers past, present, and future; "Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come" (Revelation 1:4) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted November 17, 2018 Report Share Posted November 17, 2018 On 11/15/2018 at 3:56 PM, cuchulain said: Either way, having the explanation doesnt make it plausible. On 11/15/2018 at 7:03 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: In this story, very little is plausible. There's no explanation possible to establish or convince a person of the plausibility of God.. Consider that God is Spirit and exist in a dimension that is unseen and unknown by us.. In which case, what possible evidence or explanation would be plausible? There's no plausible explanation to define that which we can't conceive. I doubt anyone is convinced of God because they have intellectually understood His existence. Its just not something we can grasp, which is why God must be accepted by faith. If you saw the burning bush yourselves, and heard the voice of God, I doubt you would accept it because you couldn't explain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted November 17, 2018 Report Share Posted November 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Dan56 said: There's no explanation possible to establish or convince a person of the plausibility of God.. Consider that God is Spirit and exist in a dimension that is unseen and unknown by us.. In which case, what possible evidence or explanation would be plausible? There's no plausible explanation to define that which we can't conceive. I doubt anyone is convinced of God because they have intellectually understood His existence. Its just not something we can grasp, which is why God must be accepted by faith. If you saw the burning bush yourselves, and heard the voice of God, I doubt you would accept it because you couldn't explain it. My inability to understand God, is not a wonderful argument. At this point, I am beyond silly arguments about God's existence or non-existence. At this point, I need a reason to care. I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan56 Posted November 18, 2018 Report Share Posted November 18, 2018 22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: My inability to understand God, is not a wonderful argument. At this point, I am beyond silly arguments about God's existence or non-existence. At this point, I need a reason to care. I don't care. Understanding God is not an argument at all, the existence of God is an answer to our sense of wonderment about why we exist and everything we don't know. "My sense of god is my sense of wonder about the universe" (Albert Einstein). Only a person without hope doesn't care.. And the finality of death is a reason to care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted November 18, 2018 Report Share Posted November 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Dan56 said: Understanding God is not an argument at all, the existence of God is an answer to our sense of wonderment about why we exist and everything we don't know. "My sense of god is my sense of wonder about the universe" (Albert Einstein). Only a person without hope doesn't care.. And the finality of death is a reason to care. You continue to misunderstand me. My position in these matters has evolved. I said I didn't know. I got arguments. I said I didn't believe. I got arguments. Well, now I don't care. Go ahead and argue. Hopeless is not a factor. I'm tired of arguing. As to the finality of death. Life is short. Too short to waste on silly arguments, about something so trivial as God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.