The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[dad]

First you said there were tests to verify that the spiritual exists, now you're saying there aren't.

I just listed several tests, where the results are already in, what are you on about??? The spiritual impacts and fulfilled prophesy, and fate of nations in response to God, and His people are all tests that show clear results.

Science has no tests, it is as an imbecile on this issue. But God gave us tests, and proofs. He said, for example, taste and see that the Lord is good' The taste test! He also gave us the do test. The do line is a clear line in the sand, which, if crossed will yield results.


Joh 7:17 -If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Then there is the life and death test

Joh 11:43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.


So many tests, so little time.

 

[Nostromo]

1. How do we know that what's in the Bible is true?
2. There are many fulfilled prophecies which attest to it's truth.
3. How do we know the prophecies were fulfilled?
4. They're in the Bible.
5. GOTO 1

 

[Tomatoman]

Nostromo:

1. How do we know that what's in the Bible is true?
2. There are many fulfilled prophecies which attest to it's truth.
3. How do we know the prophecies were fulfilled?
4. They're in the Bible.
5. GOTO 1

What dad actually reads:

1. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bible is blah?
2. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah .
3. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah?
4. blah blah the Bible.
5. blah 1

Having seen the bible mentioned a couple of times dad then reasons that he can ignore the the blah stuff that went over his head anyway and repeat that science is lies and the bible is God's own blog.

 

[dad]

1. How do we know that what's in the Bible is true?

Who cares? How would that help same state science either way?

2. There are many fulfilled prophecies which attest to it's truth.
3. How do we know the prophecies were fulfilled?

Easy, research it sometime. Did Medo Persia take power and defeat Babylon? Did the Jews go into captivity 70 years? Was the temple and city destroyed? Was the savior born in Bethlehem of a virgin, and etc?

You think Babylon is made up in the bible? Jesus? Cyrus? Peter and Paul? No. What we have is the deadness inspired by godless education to the realities of history and fact. If it is in the bible, it is discounted automatically, like some pre arranged brainwashing installed trigger! Think about it. Get free. Be happy.

 

[Nostromo]

You appear to be missing the point.

Easy, research it sometime. Did Medo Persia take power and defeat Babylon? Did the Jews go into captivity 70 years? Was the temple and city destroyed? Was the savior born in Bethlehem of a virgin, and etc?

We both know where this is going.

How can you prove to me that Isaiah wrote his prophecies prior to the events?
How can you show that Jesus was the result of an immaculate conception?
Heck, if you were there during her pregnancy how would you prove/disprove it?

You think Babylon is made up in the bible? Jesus? Cyrus? Peter and Paul? No.

"Half a truth is often a great lie." -- Benjamin Franklin

Some part of a story being true does not make the whole truthful.

What we have is the deadness inspired by godless education to the realities of history and fact. If it is in the bible, it is discounted automatically, like some pre arranged brainwashing installed trigger! Think about it. Get free. Be happy.

Get free. I like it. Wasn't it the free-thinking Church that condemned Galileo for heliocentrism, just as it condemns scientists today?

Taking baseless, inflexible scripture and holding it tight to the exclusion of all else is the exact opposite of free.

 

[Orogeny]

What he ate doesn't matter, or what he thought, at what time! Not a bit. If a spirit comes into his room and speaks to him, it won't be about his supper.

So if the fella ate a bunch of mushrooms (not the kind you find on your pizza), then had a 'spiritual' experience, it is impossible that that experience was simply the mushrooms taking effect? Or should every experience that he has while he's tripping on shrooms be taken as a direct spiritual encounter?

 

[Orogeny]

How do you detect a spirit?

I don't. Not if I can help it. God is a spirit, and He made Himself detectable through the medium of His word. That'll do it.

So then you don't read the bible? There's a surprise.

 

[dad]

You appear to be missing the point.We both know where this is going.

How can you prove to me that Isaiah wrote his prophecies prior to the events?

Let me guess he wrote em last Thursday? He was clever, sure had the Jews fooled for centuries.

How can you show that Jesus was the result of an immaculate conception?

Witnesses, the thing wasn't done in a closet.

Heck, if you were there during her pregnancy how would you prove/disprove it?
"Half a truth is often a great lie." -- Benjamin Franklin

You were not. So stick to what you know. I would actually be afraid to slur God's mom for no reason, myself. Really. Careful.

Some part of a story being true does not make the whole truthful.
Get free. I like it. Wasn't it the free-thinking Church that condemned Galileo for heliocentrism, just as it condemns scientists today?

The church also condemned Jesus. Galileo I think was wrong anyhow. He merely noted how it was at the time, not how it was at creation, or will be in the coming forever universe.

Taking baseless, inflexible scripture and holding it tight to the exclusion of all else is the exact opposite of free.

Nothing is more based than scripture on this planet. Ignoring it, is impishly juvenile, and dishonest. Let's pretend there was no Jerusalem, or Rome, or Europe, or British empire, or US, I suppose? Let's pretend it is not the year of our Lord, 2010?

 

[dad]

So if the fella ate a bunch of mushrooms (not the kind you find on your pizza), then had a 'spiritual' experience, it is impossible that that experience was simply the mushrooms taking effect? Or should every experience that he has while he's tripping on shrooms be taken as a direct spiritual encounter?

I don't take drug experiences as all that spiritual. It isn't me that defines it that way.

 

[dad]

So then you don't read the bible? There's a surprise.

So what are you saying? The topic was spirits, and you mention books? Do you think the bible is a ghost?

 

[dad]

..

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bible is blah?
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah .
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah?
blah blah the Bible.
blah 1...

Let us think about it for awhile, the only words I see in there are the bible!

 

[Tomatoman]

Let us think about it for awhile, the only words I see in there are the bible!

Yes. And you proved it with your reply to Nostromo's very good post, the contents of which went straight over your head, as I predicted.

 

[Orogeny]

I don't take drug experiences as all that spiritual. It isn't me that defines it that way.

Hallucinatory experiences are often quite vivid, and can be interpreted as real (the experience is as real as can be for the person it is happening to). If one ate mushrooms, that would certainly have an effect on his experiences for the next few hours. In this way, what one eats definitely CAN affect what can be interpreted as a 'spiritual' experience. So, in short, you are wrong.










Again.

 

[Orogeny]

So what are you saying? The topic was spirits, and you mention books? Do you think the bible is a ghost?

I was simply finishing your logic:

How do you detect spirits?
'I try not to.'
'God made himself detectable through the bible.'

Logically, then, you've essentially admitted that you do not read the bible. If this is not the case, then amend either your statement that you do not try to detect spirits, or your statement that god is a spirit detectable through the bible.

 

[dad]

Hallucinatory experiences are often quite vivid, and can be interpreted as real (the experience is as real as can be for the person it is happening to). If one ate mushrooms, that would certainly have an effect on his experiences for the next few hours. In this way, what one eats definitely CAN affect what can be interpreted as a 'spiritual' experience. So, in short, you are wrong.

A 3D imax movie can be quite vivid, that doesn't make it spiritual, or mean that ghosts fill the seats. In short, drugged out vivid just doesn't cut it as a definition of spiritual.

People in the occult, I hear use drugs as an intricate part of their relation with demons. So I do realize that drugs can be a part of some people's spiritual experience. However, they do not create ghosts, at best they might help some, of the evil spirit bend, get more in the mood.

By themselves drugs are just chemicals.

 

[dad]

I was simply finishing your logic:

How do you detect spirits?
'I try not to.'
'God made himself detectable through the bible.'

Logically, then, you've essentially admitted that you do not read the bible. If this is not the case, then amend either your statement that you do not try to detect spirits, or your statement that god is a spirit detectable through the bible.

Well, in the sense of God as a spirit, yes, the bible is the way to know Him more. In the sense of run of the mill encounters with ghosts, and angels, or demons, no, I haven't met any that I am aware of.

 

[Nostromo]

Let me guess he wrote em last Thursday? He was clever, sure had the Jews fooled for centuries.

Isaiah being the work of different authors at different times is by no means a new hypothesis. People have commented on the two distinct parts of Isaiah for 750 years at least.

Witnesses, the thing wasn't done in a closet.

How does one witness somebody not conceiving?

You were not. So stick to what you know.

You repeat this quite often and it must be one of the silliest things to say, considering that you have unwavering belief in something that happened thousands of years before you were born.

If you're going to insist I cannot make claims about the truth of the Bible, because I wasn't there, then neither can you.

The church also condemned Jesus. Galileo I think was wrong anyhow. He merely noted how it was at the time, not how it was at creation, or will be in the coming forever universe.

Galileo was wrong to claim that Earth orbits the Sun?

Nothing is more based than scripture on this planet. Ignoring it, is impishly juvenile, and dishonest. Let's pretend there was no Jerusalem, or Rome, or Europe, or British empire, or US, I suppose? Let's pretend it is not the year of our Lord, 2010?

Again, partial truth of a story does not make it wholly true, I doubt you could construct a fictional tale which does not include some known aspect of reality. That the real city of Los Angeles appears in The Terminator does not confirm the existence of time-traveling killer robots.

 

[dad]

Isaiah being the work of different authors at different times is by no means a new hypothesis. People have commented on the two distinct parts of Isaiah for 750 years at least.How does one witness somebody not conceiving?

Nope. Sounds like baseless doubts to me. What reason do you have to claim he was two?

You repeat this quite often and it must be one of the silliest things to say, considering that you have unwavering belief in something that happened thousands of years before you were born.

If you don't know better, then stick to what you do know. You were not there, you have no idea. Yet the prophesies were fulfilled, so there is no reason to doubt.

If you're going to insist I cannot make claims about the truth of the Bible, because I wasn't there, then neither can you.Galileo was wrong to claim that Earth orbits the Sun?

Only if he imagined that this arrangement was around for more than 6000 years. Or, actually, even pre flood. That we don't know. However, the indications from ancient records are that it was different.

Sinvce the bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophesies, I can make claims. You can't Not all thing are equal.

Again, partial truth of a story does not make it wholly true, I doubt you could construct a fictional tale which does not include some known aspect of reality. That the real city of Los Angeles appears in The Terminator does not confirm the existence of time-traveling killer robots.

The appearance of fossils does not confirm a same state past. The appearance of present light does not confirm it was the light of the past or future. The only partial truth here, is that you claim the bible is partial truth!

 

[Nostromo]

Nope. Sounds like baseless doubts to me. What reason do you have to claim he was two?

It's a view held by a large number of scholars based on the distinct styles found in Isaiah. You don't know what the arguments are based on, you weren't even aware that they existed, and you're ready to dismiss them, is that a reasonable outlook?

You were not there, you have no idea. Yet the prophesies were fulfilled, so there is no reason to doubt.

You were not there, you have no idea.

However, the indications from ancient records are that it was different.

And on basis do we decide which records are accurate?

Sinvce the bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophesies, I can make claims. You can't Not all thing are equal.

We are both in the position of being several centuries adrift from the writing of the Bible and the events that might have occurred. You cannot claim to know with certainty that those things happened as described. That's why historians look to artifacts of the past to piece together what actually happened. Using the Bible to verify the Bible is no more useful than using the Quran to prove itself true, or The Terminator.

The appearance of fossils does not confirm a same state past. The appearance of present light does not confirm it was the light of the past or future. The only partial truth here, is that you claim the bible is partial truth!

None of that has any bearing on my argument, and you have yet to provide any evidence or even a coherent hypothesis which outlines your view and why it should be considered.

 

[Nostromo]

Oh, and you 'forgot' to explain your comment about witnesses to Mary not conceiving.