Religion II

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Let me expand on my prior answer to you, Boxcar:

When we look into our own past...don't we see the same "sins" that we criticize the others for? How many times have we ourselves betrayed the trust that others have bestowed upon us? Does that mean that we consider OURSELVES to be "untrustworthy"?

No matter what unsavory qualities I see in a person, all I have to do is look into myself and my own actions...and, more often than not, I will see the same unsavory qualities within me. At one time or another in my life, I have been untrustworthy, dishonest, vain, petty...and a lot more. But these unsavory qualities fail to fully define me; they are just obstacles which I fight to overcome...as I try to improve my character as much as I can, day to day. And, if you ask me if I consider myself to be "trustworthy" right now...then I would answer you in the affirmative. Since I feel this way about me...shouldn't I extend the same courtesy to YOU? Why should I consider you "untrustworthy"...when I am willing to trust someone who is as faulty as I have been?

Excellent post...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There you go fibbing again. I haven't promised anything. I simply said I have written several posts in the past. Try to keep it half way honest, will ya?

But thanks for giving affirmation the Law of Distrust. It is noted in this corner and appreciated.

You said "I have posted often on this. I have provided proof.

Ok, excuse me. Provided, not promised. Why not re post that so--called "proof"? Or any proof you can write under one page please. Not another 11 part thesis.

Where did give affirmation of your nonsense? I challenged you.

Btw, what da' hell is forensic science, Sherlock?
You never defined that either. I found this on an apologetic website. Forensic Faith by J. Warner Wallace

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Don't you love Jesus, Boxcar?....If you did, you'd try to be more like him, as he conversed with those who are questioning, "What is truth"? Quit beating them over the head with your interpretation of the Bible, be more kind, quit taking yourself so damn seriously, it turns people off to any message you have to offer.


Put your big-boy pants on and take your criticisms and jabs like a man.


I'm just sayin'....

Better yet, why don't you love Jesus? Why are you chumming it up with his enemies, playing the harlot with them!?

I am conversing with people here -- but not one of them want to know the truth of the bible.

And when Pilate asked Jesus that question, do you recall Jesus' response?

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=hcap;2358820]You said "I have posted often on this. I have provided proof.

Ok, excuse me. Provided, not promised. Why not re post that so--called "proof"? Or any proof you can write under one page please. Not another 11 part thesis.

Where did give affirmation of your nonsense? I challenged you.

Btw, what da' hell is forensic science, Sherlock?
You never defined that either. I found this on an apologetic website./quote]

That's nice. And I found this on a science website:

https://www.aafs.org/home-page/stude...lines-of-aafs/

You can find my posts on the Law of Distrust on the Religious thread #172, then there was 6323 on this thread and my challenge to you on 6330 -- a challenge that you never took me up on.

And by the way for all you courageous, plastic sword-bearing, toothpick-wielding skeptics out there that use your lethal "swords" to slay dangerous hors d'oeuvres before devouring them, the challenge goes for you as well, if you doubt the validity of the Law of Distrust.

Butter knife indeed...Just to make it fair, guys, everyday I give you a handicap by tying both my hands behind my back, so a butter knife has always been out of the question.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's nice. And I found this on a science website:

https://www.aafs.org/home-page/stude...lines-of-aafs/

You are losing it Sherlock. Forensics having to do with criminal law is the standard usage. I began calling you "Sherlock" as in Holmes, to satirize you using "forensic" in your post #7908.

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, forensic scientists claim the earth is billions of years old. Just because they wear white coats and work in a lab or in he field doesn't mean they draw logical conclusions -- or even make logical premises.

No, criminal investigators do not get involved in cosmology, geology, or a dozen other sciences, proving the earth is over 4 billion years old.

Was Bishop Ussher a detective? Sherlock.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why are you chumming it up with his enemies, playing the harlot with them!?

You're right! No more chumming with this scum, who you've identified as my enemies......Is that the response you're looking for, Sport?


Do you see how asinine your comments have become, Boxcar?


No love, no peace, no kindness.....no nothing.


You're so un-Christ like, it's actually sad.


It hurts my back to stoop down to your level....We're done.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You can find my posts on the Law of Distrust on the Religious thread #172, then there was 6323 on this thread and my challenge to you on 6330 -- a challenge that you never took me up on

You can find my posts on the Law of Distrust on the Religious thread #172, then there was 6323 on this thread and my challenge to you on 6330 -- a challenge that you never took me up on.

Since we asked to prove your "Law" scientifically, I omitted your references to scripture. Using your "natural revelation" only.

Your post 172....

"Natural Revelation (reality as we know it) gives affirmation to what I call the Universal Law of Distrust. This law states that all men are presumed to be untrustworthy unless they are known, or if unknown they can prove otherwise. Stated differently, all men are presumed guilty of distrustfulness until they can prove otherwise. This is universally condemning commentary on mankind, is it not?

Hey bunky. All men are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty under criminal law

All governments, public and private institutions, businesses, etc, require that we prove our claims that we make to them before they honor them. You want a driver's license? Then you had better walk in with proof of identity. You want to fly on an airplane? You had better be prepared to prove who you are. You want to open up a bank account? Better have some I.D. on hand. Want to buy insurance? Better have all the necessary papers to prove who you are,what age you are, what values are legitimate, etc., etc.

Verification of data does not prove or disprove trustworthiness.

And we can see this universal Law in play in another important way: We put locks on virtually everything of value we own. We lock our cars. We lock our homes. We padlock our sheds and barns. We buy safes with strong locks on them. We lock up our places of business. We even arm ourselves to protect our property. We buy expensive alarm systems for our homes, boats, cars, etc, etc. In short, we really don't trust our "neighbors" very well, do we?

I told you this before trying to clarify "how" much trustworthiness should be judged in varying circumstances. Finding a dropped penny and taking it, is very different than stealing that penny or killing over it. Yes, there are anti-social forces at play. Individuals are not all the same. Some will steal, some will kill. But that is a far cry from babbling "universal" You demonstrate once again your good/evil. black/white lack of understanding of balance and justice again.

We also see this how this Law has historically affected international relationships. Powerful nations, historically, have armed themselves to the teeth either because of their nefarious designs on other nations or because they wish to protect themselves from nations they don't trust!

So, then, this Law as found in Natural Revelation gives affirmation to the teachings that are found in Special Revelation. Man truly does have a very serious moral problem -- and it's universal in scope.

Warfare is certainly a serious problem. Tribal aggression, then nation state aggression undoubtedly have been responsible for the worst atrocities in history. But to claim mass insanity is the same as one individuals' insanity and aggression is an exaggeration. Nor is it "universal"

Some nations do not declare war or invade other nations. Ever.

You might as well blame land disputes involving natural resources, water rights as the direct causes of war. Crowds and large audiences at sporting events and some political rallys, act at times much dumber and more aggressive than a single individual would act without others chiming in encouraging that individual's recklessness.

The actual causes of untrustworthiness among some people are not as simple as ONE so-called universal law.

YOU HAVE NOT "PROVED" ANYTHING

[VigorsTheGrey]

Some truth of the Bible...?
https://archive.org/stream/epdf.tips...ge/n3/mode/1up

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://archive.org/details/kingsprophetsofi00kent

[VigorsTheGrey]

Interesting movie about the history of the Jewish people...https://archive.org/details/heritage...sbornreel1.mov

Movie has many parts: to see all of them, scroll down in first movie to other parts.

Movie 7 is particularly interesting, depicting more modern times.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Since we asked to prove your "Law" scientifically, I omitted your references to scripture. Using your "natural revelation" only.

Your post 172....

Hey bunky. All men are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty under criminal law

But not under all law. Does Tax Law presume your guilt or innocence when the IRS demands that you provide proof of your innocence? The burden of proof to prove guilt is never on the IRS!

Likewise, the burden of proof is on each of US to prove who we are and to verify other critically important information as may be required, whenever we want to conduct or transact legally-regulated business in the private or public sector. So...the bottom line to this is: Whoever bears the burden of proof of guilt, the presumption of guilt is also borne by the same party. Live it, love it and learn it.

Strike One for you!

Verification of data does not prove or disprove trustworthiness.

Then what does it prove, Humpty? You need to explain to us why we need to prove who we are and/or produce and verify other important information before we are permitted to transact business.

And in addition to this sorely needed explanation, you need to explain why there are laws, rules or regulations that govern the transactions of important business, whether such business is in the private or public sector, and why those laws, rules or regulations mandate proof of identity and/or verification be produced by all persons conducting such business.

Strike Two for you! Your above statement is childish and meaningless because it explains nothing.

I told you this before trying to clarify "how" much trustworthiness should be judged in varying circumstances. Finding a dropped penny and taking it, is very different than stealing that penny or killing over it. Yes, there are anti-social forces at play. Individuals are not all the same. Some will steal, some will kill. But that is a far cry from babbling "universal" You demonstrate once again your good/evil. black/white lack of understanding of balance and justice again.
Warfare is certainly a serious problem. Tribal aggression, then nation state aggression undoubtedly have been responsible for the worst atrocities in history. But to claim mass insanity is the same as one individuals' insanity and aggression is an exaggeration. Nor is it "universal"

Humpty, we're not talking specifics here. Your anecdotal penny example is also meaningless.

Nor are we talking about justice. Another non sequitur. Stay focused, Humpty. The topic is TRUST or the lack thereof.

Also, all nations (governments and peoples) have judged the circumstances! All governments and individuals presume people unknown to them are untrustworthy until proved otherwise. No one I know, leaves his house without securing it. No one I know parks their car, without locking it. There are reasons for this, apart from habit. Apart from cultural traditions, etc. For virtually no one in the world leaves their valuables unsecured -- whatever those valuables may be.

Strike Three, Humpty for your lame non sequiturs!

Warfare is certainly a serious problem. Tribal aggression, then nation state aggression undoubtedly have been responsible for the worst atrocities in history. But to claim mass insanity is the same as one individuals' insanity and aggression is an exaggeration. Nor is it "universal"

Some nations do not declare war or invade other nations. Ever.

You might as well blame land disputes involving natural resources, water rights as the direct causes of war. Crowds and large audiences at sporting events and some political rallys, act at times much dumber and more aggressive than a single individual would act without others chiming in encouraging that individual's recklessness.

The actual causes of untrustworthiness among some people are not as simple as ONE so-called universal law.

The "causes" of distrust is not the topic either. Another non sequitur. The topic is the the existence of this universal principle of distrust. Period.

And "insanity" is not the topic either. Another non sequitur.

And riots at political or sporting events aren't wars. Another non sequitur.

Also, what some nations haven't done or have done is not the issue either. Another non sequitur. You're really on the roll, Humpty. (Methinks you have fallen off our wall too many times -- no doubt on your head.

But virtually all nations have standing armies and arm themselves for the eventuality of war -- all because they don't trust other nations. The less aggressive nations arm themselves to protect themselves from the more aggressive governments. Again, the reasons for all this distrust are irrelevant to this discussion.

YOU HAVE NOT "PROVED" ANYTHING

Strike Four! This section of your post also crumbles on the weight of all your non sequiturs.

Humpty, in order for you to deny the stark, naked reality of the Law of Distrust, your denial has forced to compose one of the stupidest posts I have ever read on the WWW. I'm serious. This post of yours is certainly in the top 10. I think a chimp could have banged out a more coherent, focused, disciplined and on-topic reply. You spent a lot of words saying nothing!

By the way, you never did answer two questions of mine from yesterday. Here they are again: Did you teach your kids when they were growing up to trust everyone they met? And have your grown children taught their kids to trust everyone they meet?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The law affirms biblical theology.

Nothing affirms biblical theology. That's why scripture proves nothing.

If anything, the so-called "law of universal distrust" or "principle of universal distrust", whatever , affirms evolution and and the principle of natural selection.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Nothing affirms biblical theology. That's why scripture proves nothing.

If anything, the so-called "law of universal distrust" or "principle of universal distrust", whatever , affirms evolution and and the principle of natural selection.

Nonsense. The twin Laws of Distrust and Sin affirm scripture.

Natural selection does not predict either of the above laws. whereas scripture does predict the universal human behavior implied by the laws.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Does Tax Law presume your guilt or innocence when the IRS demands that you provide proof of your innocence? The burden of proof to prove guilt is never on the IRS!

The IRS is not a law enforcement agency. From time to time the IRS discovers evidence of fraud or other illegal activity and when it does the matter is turned over to prosecutors. Those prosecutors do have the burden of proof.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Natural selection does not predict either of the above laws.

Of course natural selection predicts the law of distrust. To keep it simple for you: Those who trust die out. Those who do not trust survive. Survival of the distrustful. Kool, huh?