Moon was Created

[FishFace]

I know that, but many claim that things happened in the unknown past or future, like the sun will die out, and every star in the heavens, etc. They used to claim that we would return to the hot soup speck, and start all over again! They look at split affected light, that is redshifted, and declare the universe is expanding to infinity and beyond!! (forever) They look at the surface of the earth or moon, and figure that all of the inside must be the same. etc.

You evidently have no understanding of infinity.

No need to prove false what you cannot prove true. No need to question a known God, very well known God, whose proofs abound in millions of real lives, because you don't believe in anything but physical things.

Again you say God is known, but knowledge requires justification - proof. So yes there is need for proof, there is a need to question. Because if there's no proof, you don't know anything, all you do is believe.
PROVE IT!

Did you just admit you have no clue?

Take an English class, read it again.

I do.

You have a reason to believe that the inside of the earth is made of spiritual stuff? Do tell us.

Common sense of the surface applies to the surface, and places where it can be known to apply. What is down there might not be common up here.

Common sense applies wherever we don't have a good reason to believe it doesn't, actually. Like in a locked room - you can't see it, but you still know that the furniture's still there. You still know that there's no spiritual stuff going on. Same with the centre of the earth - it's just like a locked room, except further away.

Or not.

You think it's common sense to assume that something non-physical is going on, do you? Really?

We should doubt those that doubt God, for no reason. What, you think you have a divine right to make stuff up?

I say again: Your argument is based on doubt not reason. That is why nobody believes you.

There are normal causes, and exceptions. Spirits are recorded in the bible as causing disease.

Ahem. "They already are a good explanation." Your words. We already have a good explanation.

We need a REASON to doubt that explanation.

Not nearly enough is known about spiritual material

Exactly! So you ask us to DOUBT without REASON!

Either it is liquid, or spiritual and physical material.

Nonono. It might be liquid, it might S/P material, or perhaps it's made of pixie dust! Did you think of that? Or perhaps it's made of holy gravy from the flying spaghetti monster itself! Perhaps it doesn't exist at all! WHO KNOWS?!
Actually, dad - I know! Just because you've got some crazy alternative doesn't mean it's anywhere near as good. All you're presenting is an alternative - doubt. You're not giving us a reason to accept your alternative.

I tout that you need to know, before pretending you know. You don't know. So I don't need what you make up, I have God's truth on it. Until you grow some proof, and observation, and knowledge of what really is down there, you just do not have a clue.

So it may as well be goblins! You, yourself, admit that your "explanation" is just as good an explanation as saying that goblins are responsible for the wave-patterns we see!

Air is known. It can be put in a test tube. It can be tested.

Tested? So what! It could be S/P material that just happens to behave exactly like normal air! Hahaa, I love HI theory

Whatever reason I have or not

You have no reason! Otherwise you would have actually presented it by now!

 

[FishFace]

Go ahead, explain what you think it is.

A universal negative is a statement of the form "No 'x' exists" or "There has never existed an 'x'" where x is some possible thing. For example, if you put "invisible teapot" in place of 'x' then you would have a good universal negative.

No.

We were there at one time, so they were observed. Reasonable evidence is good.

Good! Then we're not flying blind when we say that the earth is made of physical, molten rock. Because we have reasonable evidence that there is liquid down there, and we have reasonable evidence that there is rock down there. Is it reasonable to assume that the air you're breathing is physical? But you don't test it, you don't know whether it's air or whether it's spiritual stuff that behaves like air.

Newsflash: we have not been in that room. You seem to not like admitting limitations.

So if you came across a locked room that you'd not been in, with no windows, would you assume that the stuff inside was physical or spiritual?

But I do assume they grew. Why not? Piece of cake.

Well then you're as barmy as people who assume leprechauns come into their room at night to party.

Are you suggesting that you have evidence that the lame did not grow new legs? Or lepers, new hands, or ears, etc? Get a grip.

Again, universal negative. "The lame did not grow new legs" is the same as claiming "There has never existed an 'x'" where 'x' is "a lame who grew new legs."
If you can prove any statement of the form "there has never existed an 'x'" then I would be happy to do the same for you.

I decided to prove it was right to myself.

You proved it to... yourself? perhaps if you'd proved it to a judge or some other rational person we'd be persuaded, but proving something to yourself is not a particularly special feat.

But still, dad. You have provided us with no REASON to believe the earth is spiritual inside. You only have DOUBT. There's a problem with doubt though, dad. (Something you'd know if you'd ever done some philosophy) And is that it's impossible to take seriously, without doubting EVERYTHING.

This is your problem dad - you are fine doubting things, as long as they don't really have much to do with you. As long as you can't see them, or if they're a long way away from you - you doubt them. But you're so blind that you don't realise the same doubt is just as valid for doubting the EVERYDAY BELIEFS that you have about the world.

 

[MoonLancer]

#375

you will note that the girls mistakenly identified John Alden, meaning these were not supernatural events.

Christian on Christian violence is so sad.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Never really gave it a lot of thought.' Let's have a look.



How can anyone explain the reason for invading a church where women, children and men were worshipping, asking them to surrender and lie face down and then proceed to machete and axe them to death in their house of worship?
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_04047nigeria.shtml

Talk about savagery!

This sound almost as savage as what God allegedly ordered the Isrealites to do to Amalek.

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....'

And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."


Or is it less savage to use swords rather than machetes?

Of course the events you relate were terrible but in you own belief system your God ordered atrocities that were as bad or worse.

At least the witches, heads almost spinning, contorting, and speaking devil talk, and having fits, had a trial, and were sentenced by a court of law.

So dad defends the Salem witch trials. Why am I not surprised?

 

[thaumaturgy]

At least the witches, heads almost spinning, contorting, and speaking devil talk, and having fits, had a trial, and were sentenced by a court of law. Many today in The USA are treated like witches were, if they are christians!

Actually, if I recall my time visiting Salem, the people who were put on trial and hanged were not the ones contorting or heads "nearly spinning". Most were actually just regular folks trying to go about their lives.

The girls who were the ones initally afflicted with contortions and whatnot and they were NOT put on trial if I recall correctly.

Rebecca Nurse was a pious, respected woman...

One man [John Proctor] who was openly critical of the trials paid for his skepticism with his life.
...
No execution caused more unease in Salem than that of the village's ex-minister, George Burroughs...
...
Two dogs were executed as suspected accomplices of witches.

(SOURCE)

 

[dad]

And so, boys and girls, we see yet another true believer come unglued. If this is the best the "spirits" can do, I can't think of a stronger case for Atheism.

If you thought I was glued, I would be worried.

 

[dad]

No you don't! You look at flippin' myths! Not even your own myths, either!

No, it was recorded as history. Read up. The moon god really is recorded in Egyptian history as having built the things I said.

History is grounded in evidence. I know you think that someone wrote it means it's true, but that just isn't good enough for history.

Say what? Does that mean you like it or not?

Any evidence of a demon? Because you know, I'd first go with epilepsy.

Well, seems to me that the evidence might be that the affected ones seemed to be messing around with the devil. Folks with the disease of epilepsy far as I know, are not like that. Are they???

 

[dad]

Yup. None of those gods are recorded in history. People's belief in them is.

Well, no, the pyramid really is said to be built by that watcher. Actual history.

All of this is just the same stuff. You claiming the spiritual exists and presenting zero to support it. Just the usual assertions, plus the usual false claims that it's up to me to demonstrate it doesn't exist.

Are you claiming it doesn't exist??? Well, considering the planet full of evidence to the contrary, you better pony up.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You claim it exists; it's up to you to demonstrate it. You haven't. You never do.

I tell you how it works. It is like this. You make claims, you pony up. Likey or lumpy.

The onus is on you, and nobody else. You are the one claiming the spiritual exists - it's up to you to demonstrate it. It's not up to us to demonstrate it doesn't exist - it's up to you to show it does.

That war is won already. Sorry you missed it. No need to fight that again. Now, it is only our reactions to the known spiritual that matter. Yours is stark, raving denial. Mine is a calm acceptance of the evidences.

This is a simple issue which is unrelated to your silly belief in the spiritual - it's just basic logic. We all agree the natural exists.

Right. We do.

You claim something exists beyond that. It's up to you to show that.

It is shown already, deal with it the best way you know how. The spiritual is not something negotiable, it is far more certain than gravity, or time.
You are welcome to your fishbowl of the natural only. It is an important part of reality. You may not claim it as all of reality, that is whacked out.

It's not up to us to falsify your claim - it's up to you to support it.

Falsify is a fishbowl concept, applying to your little world. The spiritual is so well documented, and known, and has been for all time, that it may not be dismissed, period. No option exists to do that. Your only option is denial.

I see you are desperate, and clutching at straws here to keep from having to defend your same past state myth. Relax. I am aware already that it cannot be defended by any man or woman on this earth.

 

[dad]

Actually, if I recall my time visiting Salem, the people who were put on trial and hanged were not the ones contorting or heads "nearly spinning". Most were actually just regular folks trying to go about their lives.

So, does you recollection mean that this quote from the site I looked at is wrong??
"For reasons that no one is sure the girls started having fits, making strange noises and contorting their bodies."

The girls who were the ones initally afflicted with contortions and whatnot and they were NOT put on trial if I recall correctly.

Can you support that? Not that I doubt it, but it does seem somewhat of a sloppy claim.

 

[dad]

you will note that the girls mistakenly identified John Alden, meaning these were not supernatural events.

I looked at that post, and did not see what you refer to.

Christian on Christian violence is so sad.

True. But I also think that those that like to be called Christian for political reason, that do great harm to man is also sad.

I think there should be some agreement among all Christians that filthy wars are not Christian.

 

[dad]

This sound almost as savage as what God allegedly ordered the Isrealites to do to Amalek.

The days of physical violence ended. There was a time when the righteous need to slay the devil's people here and there. For the greater good of man.

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....'

And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."


Or is it less savage to use swords rather than machetes?

It is nothing at all. It was. Why do you always seem to have a problem with that concept??? God's people had every right to do as God knew needed to be done. Go God go.
We are now in the age of grace. Here, His servants do not fight wars. God did not act as a savage, but He ordered very very evil people killed. For the greatest, and most righteous of reasons. The monsters that hacked people to death were not righteous, or God's people. They were bloodthirsty, possessed, demonic agents of the devil. They were not out for the salvation of mankind, or any holy cause, for my good, or yours, or anyone else's. God was. He needed to protect a people from the devil's people. I am glad He did.

Of course the events you relate were terrible but in you own belief system your God ordered atrocities that were as bad or worse.

No, not at all. They were great!!! Fantastic. Well deserved, and needed for man's future. I do not doubt God knows what He head to do.

So dad defends the Salem witch trials. Why am I not surprised?

Well, no. But they were legal. I don't defend a lot of legal things. Like abortion, or arresting people praying, etc.

 

[FishFace]

No, it was recorded as history. Read up. The moon god really is recorded in Egyptian history as having built the things I said.

And that is evidence that people at the time believed that the moon did some stuff. You're having trouble distinguishing what people believe from actual fact.

Say what? Does that mean you like it or not?

It means that, just because someone writes something down, does not mean it's true.

Well, seems to me that the evidence might be that the affected ones seemed to be messing around with the devil. Folks with the disease of epilepsy far as I know, are not like that. Are they???

What having fits? Like epileptic fits?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The days of physical violence ended. There was a time when the righteous need to slay the devil's people here and there. For the greater good of man.


It is nothing at all. It was. Why do you always seem to have a problem with that concept??? God's people had every right to do as God knew needed to be done. Go God go.

Savgae is savage and what they did was savage. Genocide is genocide whether done by people who claim they are God's chosen people or not.

We are now in the age of grace. Here, His servants do not fight wars. God did not act as a savage, but He ordered very very evil people killed. For the greatest, and most righteous of reasons. The monsters that hacked people to death were not righteous, or God's people. They were bloodthirsty, possessed, demonic agents of the devil.

Bloodthirsty infants and animals no doubt.

They were not out for the salvation of mankind, or any holy cause, for my good, or yours, or anyone else's. God was. He needed to protect a people from the devil's people. I am glad He did.

Weren't they also descended from the people on the ark? Those ark people sure gave rise to some nasty offspring. Maybe God saved the wrong family. Why did he let some of Noah's descendants get so evil? Was he incapable or incompent or did he just want some people around from one group of Noah's descendants to attack an other group of Noah's descendants so that he could order his "chosen" group of Noah's descendants to murder them?

No, not at all. They were great!!! Fantastic. Well deserved, and needed for man's future. I do not doubt God knows what He head to do.

So murdering infants was great as long as it was ordered by God.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And that is evidence that people at the time believed that the moon did some stuff. You're having trouble distinguishing what people believe from actual fact.



It means that, just because someone writes something down, does not mean it's true.



What having fits? Like epileptic fits?

Ergot Poisoning may have played a role in the Salem Witch episode along with mass hysteria of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

So murdering infants was great as long as it was ordered by God.

Show me where God ordered the murdering of infants.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder,

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Show me where God ordered the murdering of infants.

Oh Please, you have seen this before.

1 Samuel 15
2. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt
3. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Slaying infants is murder pure and simple no matter how you try to justify it. The lengths that Biblical literalists go to in their attempts to justify this genocide and massacre of women, children, infants and even animals never cease to amaze me. It's not a very nice way to treat your relatives only a few generations after you all descend from just one small family.

 

[FishFace]

By the way dad, there are some posts of mine you've not responded to yet.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So, does you recollection mean that this quote from the site I looked at is wrong??
"For reasons that no one is sure the girls started having fits, making strange noises and contorting their bodies."

I have no doubt that the girls could have been afflicted by something. I believe as has been pointed out on this thread it may have been ergot poisoning (not unheard of at the time).

Even today some people have adverse reactions to things. And even some people's bodies contort in agony from purely physical means. Even insane people have this happen! To my knowledge, unless you are going to claim that "demon spirits" respond to antipsychotic medication, it is reasonable to assume mental illness is a function of physical things, not demons.

Can you support that? Not that I doubt it, but it does seem somewhat of a sloppy claim.

Your claim about the witches contorting and heads nearly spinning being put on trial really seems to be a conflation of a couple different things. Your claim makes it sound as if these people who were contorting were the witches and they were tried in accordance with law. But in fact the "contortionists" (if you will) were the accusers:

The girls who were initially afflicted were Betty Parris and Abigail Williams. Later Mary Walcott was also "afllicted" and acted as a witness at the trials (there may have been others but I don't have the info).

"The girls [Abigail and Betty] screamed, threw things about the room, uttered strange sounds, crawled under furniture, and contorted themselves into peculiar positions, according to the eyewitness account of Rev. Deodat Lawson (SOURCE)

Here's what happened to them:

Betty Parris: "Although she initially played a large part in the accusations, Betty Parris's role soon diminished as she was sent to live with relatives of magistrate Samuel Sewall, after which her afflictions seem to have subsided. (SOURCE)"​

Abigail Williams: "The girls were eventually asked to name their supposed tormentors. They did so, thus bringing about the witch trials, which ended with the deaths of many innocent people. There is no definite evidence of what happened to Williams after the trials ended. One reference believes she "apparently died before the end of 1697, if not sooner, no older than seventeen." (SOURCE)

Mary Walcott: "She married Isaac Farrar on April 29, 1696. Isaac was the son of John Farrar of Woburn, Massachusetts. They had several children, and eventually moved to Townsend, Massachusetts. There are no records of their death, and no gravestone.(SOURCE)"​

(to be fair there is some indication that some critics of Mary accused "...her of everything from compromise to actually being a witch who foiled her potential adversaries by distracting their attention away from herself onto innocent persons" (SOURCE), but it doesn't sound as if she was brought to trial, otherwise she wouldn't be accused of diverting attention away from herself and foiling her adversaries.)

In summation, here's a list of the people convicted and hanged (or pressed)​

Nineteen accused witches were hanged on Gallows Hill in 1692:
June 10
Bridget Bishop
July 19
Rebecca Nurse
Sarah Good
Susannah Martin
Elizabeth Howe
Sarah Wildes
August 19
George Burroughs
Martha Carrier
John Willard
George Jacobs, Sr.
John Proctor
September 22
Martha Corey
Mary Eastey
Ann Pudeator
Alice Parker
Mary Parker
Wilmott Redd
Margaret Scott
Samuel Wardwell
One accused witch (or wizard, as male witches were often called) was pressed to death on September 19 when he failed to plead guilty or not guilty:
Giles Corey

(SOURCE)
​

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh Please, you have seen this before.

I like Adam Clarke's commentary on this ---

[bible]1 Samuel 15:2[/bible]

The Amalekites were a people of Arabia Petraea, who had occupied a tract of country on the frontiers of Egypt and Palestine. They had acted with great cruelty towards the Israelites on their coming out of Egypt. They came upon them when they were faint and weary, and smote the hindermost of the people-those who were too weak to keep up with the rest. (See De 25:18.) And God then purposed that Amalek, as a nation, should be blotted out from under heaven; which purpose was now fulfilled by Saul upwards of four hundred years afterwards!

[bible]1 Samuel 15:3[/bible]

Nothing could justify such an exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God. This was given: all the reasons of it we do not know; but this we know well, The Judge of all the earth doth right. This war was not for plunder, for God commanded that all the property as well as all the people should be destroyed.

Slaying infants is murder pure and simple no matter how you try to justify it.

I don't need to justify it --- I wasn't there. What I need to to, is to take it on faith that God knew what He was doing. As I have pointed out, His Son, Who was there, later reiterated the Ten Commandments to Israel. And consider this: God would not give the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, then break one of them in 1 Samuel 15.

The lengths that Biblical literalists go to in their attempts to justify this genocide and massacre of women, children, infants and even animals never cease to amaze me.

I have a feeling you're not too familiar with ancient warfare tactics --- or prophecy.

It's not a very nice way to treat your relatives only a few generations after you all descend from just one small family.

They had ample warning ---

[bible]Numbers 24:20[/bible]

--- 400 years is a long time.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I like Adam Clarke's commentary on this ---

[bible]1 Samuel 15:2[/bible]



[bible]1 Samuel 15:3[/bible]





I don't need to justify it --- I wasn't there. What I need to to, is to take it on faith that God knew what He was doing. As I have pointed out, His Son, Who was there, later reiterated the Ten Commandments to Israel. And consider this: God would not give the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, then break one of them in 1 Samuel 15.



I have a feeling you're not too familiar with ancient warfare tactics --- or prophecy.



They had ample warning ---

[bible]Numbers 24:20[/bible]

--- 400 years is a long time.

Nothing can justify this. Can you imagine the perps on trail for war crimes and genocide saying "It was OK because these people attacked us in the past and anyway God told us to kill them all even the babies."

The mental gymnastics that Biblical Literalists go through to try to justify this atrocity are amazing to behold.