Theological Ramblings.

There is evidence that Joseph and Mary were first cousins. Therefore, it wouldn't matter since the lineage was nearly identical.

"Evidence" You can prove Jesus existed as Did Mary?

Source and Grave Site please.

Biblical evidence. Don't be a tool, it was a direct response to a particular question, not an "OMG PROVE GOD EXISTS" flamebait post.

You used the word Evidence when you have none, it is irrelevant whether you put "biblical" as it's just words used by people.

if you mean "Theoretically" or "Biblically written they are related" ok, but you can't use the word Evidence when it is blatantly wrong.

I actually assumed you mean as in the bible, however you never stated that and hence your comment had to be shot down.

People use "evidence" too often when they have none and its founded on Hearsay and I really don't like it when people do that, so Sue me, I expect people to correctly use the english language and not try and make their posts seem Supremely Intelligent and superior by saying they have something they don't ie PROOF/ EVIDENCE, but hey!

We in Scotland don't pretend to be something we're not, I for one am not able to let things lie.

Personally, I put the those kind of contradictions into the same basket as all the other dogmatic lunacy that distracts from a good idea.

You knew what I meant, but you just had to make a big deal out of the semantics of my post. Funny how I don't see you doing that on the other P&R topics, so clearly you just have a bone to pick with religion and couldn't let your rage go without nit-picking minute details.

No, evidence is specifically used for things that AREN'T what's written in the Bible. Evidence would be finding the remains of a city that is only mentioned in the Bible. Finding historical documents showing a link between the families of 2 people that could plausibly be the Biblical Mary and Joseph that corroborates the story in the Bible. Using a source to corroborate the same source is fallacious beyond comprehension and you know it.

It was a Biblical question to begin with, so addressing it with a response from the Bible makes perfect sense. Seriously Jassik, you're way more dense than usual lately. I'm a frickin' scientist, don't act like I don't know that the physical evidence for Bible stories is often lacking. That's beyond obvious and has nothing to do with the point Chanti brought up.

I'm actually a Devote Catholic, I have no issue with Religion, what people think or believe is their own opinion, you seem to be projecting your own issues on people now.

I merely pointed out your completely inappropriate use of a word.

If you don't like this, then use the correct words to describe what you trying to communicate because although someone like myself may not get confused by your wording, someone else might.

And I would hate to think they would change their entire world because your proclaimed you, not yours or anyone else's religion, had proof x person existed as the savior of humanity etc etc.

If you're a scientist, distinguish yourself from the raving lunatics by using the correct terminology instead of quoting taglines from the "creation sciences" websites. I wasn't responding to Chanti's point, I was responding to you saying "evidence" when what you really meant was "hearsay" and then called the person who called you out on it a tool.

The point was that you used incorrect language to describe something.

Use the word Proof and Evidence when you have either.

Jassik, I am a Tool however, I personally have no issue with it though.

People can't seem to understand tools are used to get things done.

I don't read creation sciences websites, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. "Evidence" is not a word that belongs solely to proven physical sciences. If I said that there was evidence within "Moby ***" that Ahab had obsessive compulsive disorder, would that be a misuse of the word or would you be going on a rant about how there's no physical evidence for such a whale ever existing and want historical papers from Ahab's psychiatrist visits?

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Wow, I had to go as far as Wikipedia to show you guys how absurd you're being over the use of the word evidence.

Moby *** is fictional... You're making a parallel I don't think you intended to make.

In the case of the Bible, you claim that at least some portion of it is a historical record of true events. Thus, the bar for using words like "evidence" is much higher. I don't even care that you used the word the way you did, it just irked me that when called out on it, you responded the way you did.

You didn't say where your evidence was from, hence your entire argument is moot.

You said Evidence with no point of reference to The Bible, which removes any point you are trying to make that it is intrinsically linked to a Point of Reference (I hope you comprehend this point as a scientist you made a fundamental flaw).


Please point out where in here, you made reference to the Bible, you referred to Lineage.. which wouold suggest you have either DNA evidence and therefore access to their corpses or you found some ancient manuscript with Deaths and Births recorded there proviing such fact.

You have done none of these hence your entire post made no sense and used the incorrect language to back up your point.

Further more



I never said I needed evidence to substantiate a False Universe where it never existed, I said I need evidence that something existed in this world, as you made no point or reference to a non physical, or "Theoretical Reality" you merely used a generalized comment which would encompass the natural living world AKA ours.

Arguing from this point onwards that your language was correct is rather dumb in my opinion, however I'm sure if you test this hypothesis with "trial and error science" (I happen to have a Master's in Physics) you should come up with the same conclusion that you are indeed wrong.

Your Feelings on this matter are irrelevant

So you're fighting with me over semantics out of principle for using a word in an acceptable way, but only because you didn't like my response to someone going out of their way to say I didn't use a word correctly when I did. Keep fighting that good fight, buddy. It'll get you somewhere.

And you think Wikipedia is a Substantial Site to support you?

Yes because No one has editing rights to Wikipedia.

EDIT*

You are correct in as much as I did realise what you meant, however wrong is wrong, it's black and white.

Except that you assertions where not mentioned, backed up nor mentioned how or why they were "in support" simply saying "there is evidence they were related" does not provide anything.

Its your opinion until you say "in the bible" otherwise you could have been referring to anything in the universe.

This is similar to Fruedism, where it's true until you prove me wrong. This style of thinking was abolished a long time ago and as not accepted as "evidence in support of" by Soft Sciences, so how a Scientist who I assume? Is part of the Natural Sciences can allow this and expect people to back him up is beyond me.

If I were writing a research paper, I would've cross-referenced all sources for your enjoyment and perusal and had it peer-edited. I wrote a short response to a short statement in an online forum, and you jumped all over me for my correct usage of a word in a way you didn't like. If you want sources next time, ask me for clarification instead of attacking me on a tangent subject.

People use almost exactly that wording constantly when discussing Biblical stories, I know what you meant, and you're still wrong. But, instead of clarifying it, you chose to call him a tool. It's typical of the mental disconnect that smart people have when someone questions any respect of their arguably stupid personal beliefs. It's the same point you make when people freak out about racial tensions or poverty.

I did actually ask for References and Grave Sites in my Immediate response.

You said you didn't have any, so I pointed out the incorrect use of your word.

What part of this are you saying I didn't do again?

FYI This is not an attack on you, it is an attack on your usage of a word incorrectly that has large connotations to them to back up a point where there was no reference made nor any hint available to someone just scimming.

I'd of had no issues had he said "I meant within the Bible, my mistake here's a link for Reference".

it would have more than answered my question.

I don't care if people question my personal beliefs. Call me an idiot for what I believe, that's cool. Making a big deal out of nothing just to start a fight isn't, hence why I called him a tool. As I mentioned previously, he didn't ask for clarification, he just attacked me over stupid semantics when both of you already knew what I meant.


You asked for grave sites, and you expected me to take you seriously?

Even just saying "I meant within the Bible" would have settled it for just about anyone. The people who actually care to investigate it would probably find that he is founded in that statement, the people who don't, wouldn't find it compelling or relevant, anyway.

I knew what you meant because Aliens told me, not because you provided the tools for people to know what you meant.

Sure looks like he's asking for clarification to me.

Yes I did expect you to take me seriously, about as seriously as when you posted you had evidence!

I could have genuinely thought you had Legitimate, Physical evidence to support this!

But you didn't.

I would love to see you nitpick your liberal buddies on here the way you do me. If you want to have a real discussion over real things and not the wording of things you already understood, I'd love to try that sometime.


If you really thought that, I'm concerned about your mental well-being.