God and Religion Talk

Of course not. Paul never met Jesus in person. Where do you take those false facts from????

Fox News?

Can you prove they are false ? Of course not.
My source is a book called the Holy Bible.
You can go there yourself to do your own homework because I am trying to make bean soup for a outside winter bondfire tonight.
I will give you a start though to go where to look to solve your dilemma.
Galatians 1:11-12.
We can take this up later as I won't be home until late.

Did you come here to ad something constructive or just be a twat again to get involved in the discuss.

I wonder why he thinks they met.

I don't recall saying that he did even though there is suggestions that Paul did meet Jesus before his conversion.
I wonder why you refuse to tell us what denomination you are.
Why would anyone be ashamed of that ?
This party tonight is going to really fun.

That's not how it works in civilized societies...

The burden of proof is always on the proponents. . The opponents may but are not required to prove anything.

I cannot prove that on day X I wasn't at place Y - unless I was in prison on that day, the only alibi that is 100% sure.

Yes, you better watch CNN

Oh la la, johhny, so many posters are ganging up on you now that I feel the need to come to your rescue as I always do in such situations at school.
Thank you for starting this thread, it is really valuable food for thought and don`t mind my remarks about Paul coz I am a perfectionist who doesn`t have to be taken so seriously after all. :):):)

What suggestions. From whom?

It's not impossible. There were only about 50,000people in Jerusalem at the time. It's notable that St Paul didn't mention any encounters in his letters

They may have passed each other in the street, however you can say that about Stalin and Hitler who lived a few hundred yards from each other in Vienna for a short period.

Remember, the historical Jesus, and St Paul's Logos/Christ may well have been very different.

We have already debated that too,
Remember when I told you that you are the last person I have to defend my Christianity or beliefs too.
Damn you are an annoying old frump.


Another Woke just like Lyzko, always asking questions but never answering any.
I'm going to try your own tactic on you.
What denomination are you from Jon357 ?


Do I act like I am intimidated ?

Ember-Day Bryanite originally, however nowadays I waver between Antoinisme and The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion.

Now who are you saying has suggested that St Paul met Jesus, despite never mentioning it in any of his substantial corpus of letters about Him.

He doesn't have to prove that they are false.

The burden of proof that they are true is on you.

Both Christian based and both Evangelical.
Cool.


He did but not the earthly Jesus that you are thinking of.


I don't have to prove anything to you, Turd
Now Git !

The snowshoe party was great tonight.
We snowshoed and had a kettle of bean soup over an open fire outside in 10* degree weather.
We prayed and gave thanks for all the snow that will melt and fill the underground well water that we drink and bathe in.
What an awesome God.

The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion is mainstream Protestant Christianity and in any case I was sending you off on a Google hunt.

I nearly said Agapemonite, Southcottian, Non-juror and CathAp. One day, I'll say, however it's more mainstream than all of those. Though I do quite like Antoinism.


He really didn't ever meet Jesus. Post-mortem, we cannot say.

Of course, you don't have to.

I said:

The burden of proof that they are true is on you.

That's Logic and Law 101. You shouldn't have skipped that class.

And the burden of proof is on you just as much as on Johnny. I can only laugh, watching logic dissipating in front of my eyes:::)))

No.

The claimant that something is true is expected to prove that it is. A wife who claims years of verbal abuse must prove that the abuse actually happened.

The husband could not possibly prove that it didn't.

The same with God...

Just say: I believe that God exists and everything is nice and cool. No argument.

The problem is that this is not good enough to the religious zealots. They want more and say: God exists.

By saying it you cross the line and step into the world of logic and facts that require evidence - if you want to be credible, If you don't care, we are good again.

So what's left? A neat verbal flip: Prove that God does not exist.

That's not how it works in real life, children...

My best advice to PF posters: Don't tango with me. I never lose.

Oh well, it is all clear now; religious experts have spoken, even though their opinions are as worthless as their "religious"denomination.
If he were truthful for one post, he would confess that his only proper denomination is hedonism. Why, in his writings, does Paul not state the obvious, is a proof
one way or other?

All opinions, without exceptions, are worthless until proven to be correct...

Then opinions become facts. For example, that Earth is not flat.

Rich, my friend, so what is your evidence?

Evidence of what?

What if the wife's neighbors testify that they have witnessed the verbal abuse of the husband ((ie. heard him yelling at her)? Would that be enough proof for the court?

No. It would be just another testimony that the jury may accept or reject. But it sure adds to the totality of the case.

Only police videos are proof. That's why the cops do not take your word alone to the DA.

They need their own and thus unimpeachable videos and forensics. The defense lawyer will try his best to make the jury feel skeptical but it's a loser since cops have no reason to fabricate such evidence at the risk to their jobs, pensions, and everything else dear to them.. Yes, there are rare exception so don't go to some do.

It seems to me that Jon's head might be flat:::)) Which not exclude the fact that his religious opinions just like false denominations are wortles.
I write all the time, not one time I call Jon a moron. I doubt that proves anything.

Opinions and beliefs don't require proof.

That's why transholes are so annoying...They never say: In my opinion trans women are women.

It's always: Trans women are women. End of discussion or you are a disgusting transphobe.

God exists is in the same category.

The non-existence of God.

So if the wife is found dead in her home with a bullet in her head and:

1. The gun was owned by the husband.
2. A neighbor heard him yelling at his wife before a gun shot was fired.
3. The husband denies he killed his wife.

Then the husband will not go to jail because the incident was not video recorded and there was not enough proof of the husband's wrongdoing?

Not just yet...It could be suicide.

Ok, so your legal standards are pretty high.

Still, regarding proof or evidence. If you keep asking for evidence and proof, the other side may demand the same and you will not be able to provide.

You CANNOT refute the existence of God, so why do you demand a proof of God's existence? It would only be fair to demand a proof of something only if you are able to refute it.

Ptak my old friend, it has been explained to Novi umpteen times that we are talking spiritually while he is talking worldly. (of the world)
He is not smart enough to grasp what that means or if he does he just wants to argue so he has someone to talk to today.
That or he is just stuck on stupid when it comes to God and Religion Talk.