tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3283884056584618971..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: GodsRewardRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21808244633784917212007-03-27T13:24:00.000-04:002007-03-27T13:24:00.000-04:00Thanks Peter!Thanks Peter!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38932718489119104862007-03-27T09:23:00.000-04:002007-03-27T09:23:00.000-04:00"What is that "something" that "tells" you this? D..."What is that "something" that "tells" you this? Do tell!"<BR/><BR/>It's probably the horrible argumentation and the crybaby attitude that tipped him off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84249395384298873762007-03-27T07:36:00.000-04:002007-03-27T07:36:00.000-04:00Peter Pike said: You mean you can tell the differe...Peter Pike said: You mean you can tell the difference??? :-)<BR/><BR/><BR/>You mean you can't???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8867121004184371932007-03-27T04:56:00.000-04:002007-03-27T04:56:00.000-04:00Of is anonymous really the villainous Monty Bristo...Of is anonymous really the villainous Monty Bristow, alias 'The Disturber?'The Green Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05295306426508075156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56626808170596269812007-03-27T04:54:00.000-04:002007-03-27T04:54:00.000-04:00Anon, laddie, given that this standard of proof ex...Anon, laddie, given that this standard of proof excludes:<BR/><BR/>'words, whether spoken, written, sung, or electronically generated...'<BR/><BR/> I think the description of this as ridiculously high is fair. As was noted, this means that one cannot prove any historical event actually happened. <BR/><BR/> Equally, I saw no proof that the person running this site actually has $100,000 to give away. Before even trying, I would need to see the colour of their money. After all, if the boodle isn't there, then it means they fail the test of honest intent.<BR/><BR/> In other words, the site is pure bunk.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71334959827611285592007-03-26T22:38:00.000-04:002007-03-26T22:38:00.000-04:00George's Spectre said:---Or the Anon is George. --...George's Spectre said:<BR/>---<BR/>Or the Anon is George. <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>You mean you can tell the difference??? :-)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72585944328086413942007-03-26T22:01:00.000-04:002007-03-26T22:01:00.000-04:00Hi George,Welcome back. Did you run out of pimple...Hi George,<BR/><BR/>Welcome back. Did you run out of pimples to pop? Now we'll get to hear some REAL blather from the internet monkey...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50246175945579855452007-03-26T20:36:00.000-04:002007-03-26T20:36:00.000-04:00Or the Anon is George.Or the Anon is George.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9247274098934407692007-03-26T20:33:00.000-04:002007-03-26T20:33:00.000-04:00Something tells me this anonymous poser is the aut...<I><BR/>Something tells me this anonymous poser is the author of the website.... <BR/></I><BR/>Like '99%' of the rest of your vapid tripe, you're wrong about that as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88504352531259948272007-03-26T19:37:00.000-04:002007-03-26T19:37:00.000-04:00Peter Pike said: Something tells me this anonymous...Peter Pike said: Something tells me this anonymous poser is the author of the website....<BR/><BR/>What is that "something" that "tells" you this? Do tell!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44519728718090683112007-03-26T18:54:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:54:00.000-04:00Something tells me this anonymous poser is the aut...Something tells me this anonymous poser is the author of the website....Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49520123494107430722007-03-26T18:11:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:11:00.000-04:00Hireath pontificated:Oh, and the standard of proof...Hireath pontificated:<BR/><I><BR/>Oh, and the standard of proof is wonderfully high. Short of transporting the unbeliever to the exact place of a personal manifestation of the presence of God, there is no proof, as said gentleman will not accept anything filtered through the medium of a human being, or indeed a picture.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Hilarious.<BR/><BR/>Why should my standard of proof be any less then the disciple Thomas, who allegedly tramped around ancient Palestine witnessing your mythical savior god doing all kinds of miracles, but wouldn't believe the report of one more, as told to him by another trusted friend?<BR/><BR/>Christians are famous for their delusions and their lies...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16994538383997044532007-03-26T17:45:00.000-04:002007-03-26T17:45:00.000-04:00The simple point regarding this website is that it...The simple point regarding this website is that it is bunk. And the host is, to say the least, a little suspect. Ignore the junk statistics, and concentrate on the facts, and note that here you have another man who is concerned by the threat to secularism.<BR/><BR/> The trouble is that if we assert the absolute right of the atheist-secularist to live in a state where no-one who has a faith-based worldview has a part in politics, then we are violating the right of the Christian (or any other religious believer committed to the democratic process) to take part in politics. For me, I prefer Lord Randolph Churchill's maxim: 'Let the people decide.' Provided the rights of all persons to an equal share in the democratic process are maintained, and the rights of conscience respected, then no-one need fear. When any one sect or party decides that its views are the only views, then conflict happens. And this is not helped when people get hysterical about 'theocracy' and what have-you.<BR/><BR/> Oh, and the standard of proof is wonderfully high. Short of transporting the unbeliever to the exact place of a personal manifestation of the presence of God, there is no proof, as said gentleman will not accept anything filtered through the medium of a human being, or indeed a picture.<BR/><BR/> That brought a wry smile to my lips.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57350696109420852222007-03-26T17:35:00.000-04:002007-03-26T17:35:00.000-04:00Peter Pike said:"Thanks Anonymous. I should clarif...Peter Pike said:"Thanks Anonymous. I should clarify that part :-)<BR/>The impartial third party would only exist to validate whether the terms of the contest were fulfilled. It is not stating that the impartial third party would determine whether God has actually been "proven" since an impartial party on that question would not exist."<BR/><BR/>But that is the contest...PROOF! I would really like to hear your criteria for impartiality. It would seem that the believer, (since no proof was needed for them to believe in the first place, nor is any proof needed to keep them believing) would not be impartial, could not be impartial.<BR/>A non believer is the only obvious choice to be an impartial judge. Because he or she is not convinced as to the existence of a god. If, after hearing the evidence for the claim of proof, the non believer then believes, (becomes a born again Christian for all eternity) the money is then to be awarded. If the non believer remains a non believer, no payment is awarded.<BR/>Sounds simple enough to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51765941059014903012007-03-26T17:09:00.000-04:002007-03-26T17:09:00.000-04:00Moreover, everyone believes at his own risk what h...Moreover, everyone believes at his own risk what he does believe. He must see to it for himself that he believes what is right. A man can no more believe or disbelieve for me than he can go to Hell or to Heaven for me; and he can no more drive me to faith or unbelief than he can open or shut Heaven or Hell for me. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of everyone’s conscience, and since this does not diminish secular power, this power should be satisfied and tend to its own business and let men believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and should constrain no one by force. For faith is a voluntary act to which no one can be forced. It is, in fact, a divine act, done in the spirit, certainly not a work which an external power should enforce and create .<BR/><BR/>Faith will not force and press anyone to accept the Gospel.... But here you see the pope errs and does wrong when he presumes to drive people by force; for the Lord commanded the disciples to do no more than preach the Gospel. And that is what the disciples did; they preached the Gospel and let him get it who wanted it. They did not say: Believe, or I will kill you .<BR/><BR/>To the end of the world men should not mix these two powers [church and state] as was done at the time of the Old Testament among the Jewish people. But they must remain severed and separated from each other if we are to preserve the true Gospel and the true faith..... For all reach for the sword. The Anabaptists, [Thomas] Muenzer, the pope, and all bishops wanted to rule and reign - but not in their calling. That is the wretched devil’s way. ... The devil does all this. He takes no holiday until he has mixed the two swords .<BR/><BR/>We should learn to separate spiritual and temporal power from each other as far as Heaven from Earth, for the pope has greatly obscured this matter and has mixed the two powers... .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43033215228639607182007-03-26T16:27:00.000-04:002007-03-26T16:27:00.000-04:00Peter Pompous writes:Why have 99% of societies tha...Peter Pompous writes:<BR/><I>Why have 99% of societies that have ever existed on this Earth not held to this “fundamental” human right? <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Probably for the same reason you pull random statistics out of your arse?<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Indeed, why did it take a bunch of Christian Protestants to get this concept into popular culture?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Hilarious. Perhaps Peter Piker ought to read a history book?<BR/><BR/>It was Christian Protestants who railed against the no establishment clause and fought to insert their god into the Constitution for 100 years after it was ratified. <BR/><BR/>Christian theocracies were no different then the Taliban when it came to not allowing freedom of speech, religion or belief.<BR/><BR/>Get a clue. Check the 10 commandments...<BR/><BR/>BTW...Do you have any proof of existence for your personal fairy godmother?<BR/><BR/>No...didn't think so...just a lot of vapid blather.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9298548266115209642007-03-26T16:14:00.000-04:002007-03-26T16:14:00.000-04:00Thanks Anonymous. I should clarify that part :-)T...Thanks Anonymous. I should clarify that part :-)<BR/><BR/>The impartial third party would only exist to validate whether the terms of the contest were fulfilled. It is not stating that the impartial third party would determine whether God has actually been "proven" since an impartial party on <I>that</I> question would not exist.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1944756235596620412007-03-26T14:37:00.000-04:002007-03-26T14:37:00.000-04:00Peter Pike said: At the very least, an impartial ...Peter Pike said: At the very least, an impartial third party ought to be the “final judgment”.<BR/><BR/>I laughed so hard after reading that, I just couldn't read the rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com