tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post8439198406480046321..comments2024-03-27T11:13:34.520-05:00Comments on The Dunamis Word: Fornication & Pre-Marital Sexual Activity. The Bible IS ClearUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-49904184731639055102014-08-23T22:32:44.937-05:002014-08-23T22:32:44.937-05:00Now, in season 2 Dietrick has gone to great length...Now, in season 2 Dietrick has gone to great lengths to assert that he wasn't endorsing the sin of fornication as if everyone listening to him was some type of imbecile...Only he's the idiot...we know what both you and your new wife said or at least "were"saying...article on the way on this slow train-wreck and fiasco...District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-56161588982376187222013-11-27T08:46:41.446-06:002013-11-27T08:46:41.446-06:00Supt. Burnett,
I am grieved about the propagation...Supt. Burnett,<br /><br />I am grieved about the propagation of these "Christianized" reality shows. If you are in open sin, you need to step back and get ministered to before you sing, preach, dance, etc. before God's people. These individuals did not get a good foundation in the basics of Christianity before they got away from the church ands started recording careers. I would get myself together in all areas of my life before I launch myself out to the world. Humility and holiness is the key in anything we say and do. Haddon and LeAndria need to sit themselves out of ministry for a longer season and get help for the issues causing them bad press. Accountability also would help them get back on track.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-16971325815554587872013-11-25T12:10:21.048-06:002013-11-25T12:10:21.048-06:00Go HERE: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2013/11...Go HERE: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2013/11/in-matrix-with-stephen-hawking.html<br /><br />More than half of what you try and insist on asserting is already DEBUNKED in his 10 minutes of presentation. Place any RATIONAL commentary there. I know that will be hard, but do that. District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-57616327279523502222013-11-25T12:07:45.280-06:002013-11-25T12:07:45.280-06:00One thing I can't stand is a DISRESPECTFUL per...One thing I can't stand is a DISRESPECTFUL person. Told you what to do. Post in the APPROPRIATE forum and deal with the issues presented. Please. you have NOTHING new or interesting to offer except a RANT....No more rants at least not here. Thanks.<br />District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-62511536371923867522013-11-24T23:49:28.618-06:002013-11-24T23:49:28.618-06:00Now, if you had any GUTS at all, you would call Hi...Now, if you had any GUTS at all, you would call Hines's office tomorrow and set a meeting with him to review this evidence that you supposedly want to see. travel to gain the information. Interview him and go visit the doctors who wrote the records that you will see. If you can't do that, you're not even real in your skepticism. be TRUE to yourself. When you do that, get back with me. I will be more than glad to hear your commentary. District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-54779439468905854402013-11-24T23:43:32.585-06:002013-11-24T23:43:32.585-06:00As stated it doesn't take too many brains to k...As stated it doesn't take too many brains to know that material processes or laws can't begin themselves. Logic cannot be PROVEN and you know full well what I am saying. YOU said that you don't believe anything without evidence. Well there is no evidence to prove logic. Under your ruberic, logic doesn't exist.<br /><br />further Batman has no evidence in history other than a story line from comics to movies. There is no correlation from batman to a the real person. of Jesus. So you are about as off as off can be...<br /><br />You are an ultra skeptic. That is an unreasonable view and tenor of the world. You say that the Supernatural may exist in an alternate universe like Spider man. That is just stupid and ignorant. Has nothing to do with the concept of God or what we are talking about. <br /><br />Lastly, and <b>I won't allow you to post another idiotic ramble in this forum, [show respect for someone other than yourself and my work and place commentary in the PROPER forum next time]</b> you relegate NDE's to lack of scientific understanding. That is EXACTLY what I was saying and the author was saying about moving the goal post. That is also called scientism. You simply assert that "science will explain it all by and by"....That is ridiculous along with your excuse of hallucinations. There are NO hallucination when a person is dead unless you are trying to assert even when there is brain death, there is no death...either way, your theories are totally jacked up and unreasonable and even unscientific...<br /><br />Get this...you believe, that life comes from rocks and material substances, that comic book characters offer some evidence in real life, on the same level of a real life Jesus whom all of history turns on for over 2000 years, and that brains can live for up to 15 minutes or longer when doctors declare them and the physical bodies that house them to be dead....You further believe that circular reasoning (such as using logic to prove logic) is logical and acceptable when it comes to supporting your premise, but is unacceptable to debunk your theories...You believe that there are different stages of death as noted in your COMICAL statement about "permanent death"-LOL Still laughin at that one!!!! So the dead may not really be dead....OK, so here we go, you should believe in zombies right? The living dead....then you believe that thoughts are material substances although you can't see them, capture them and or verify them by the same criteria that you assert....and you call what I say SPECIAL PLEADING??? Oooh brother!!!!<br /><br />You are out there my friend. I would suggest that you come out of the sewer of self, go back to God and obtain the abundant life that only Christ can provide because you NEED it with jacked up theories like that. Last I remember, if you were telling the truth, you were suffering. Now, since you left Christ, how is that materialism working out for you? You should have all your dreams by now...right???? <br /><br />Materialism the ULTIMATE fantasy, myth, and deception of the ages!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-66429948764647341432013-11-24T22:29:33.712-06:002013-11-24T22:29:33.712-06:00Appealing to Jesus to prove your point is like app...Appealing to Jesus to prove your point is like appealing to Batman to prove your point. You have to demonstrate they exist before you can claim what they do. Personal experience isn't evidence to anybody else, except you. You cannot demonstrate the existence of a soul, which I think is what you're getting at when you say "mind". Just because science can't explain something now, doesn't mean they'll never be able to explain it and it doesn't mean you get to attribute it to magic.<br /><br />NDE's have been explained. When the brain is starved of oxygen it can cause hallucinations. It isn't 100 percent understood, because we don't understand everything about how the brain works. And science is happy to say I don't know, let's find out rather than just attributing it to magic. It's also notable to point out that most of the time with NDE's, people see things consistent with their religion, which explains why christians never see Shiva, or why Muslims don't see Zeus and why Hindu's don't see jesus.<br /><br />Logic can be demonstrated. You're probably in a house or building right now. Alot of math and engineering went into constructing the structure you're in. And it has to be constructed in such a way that it doesn't fall over and crush you to death. There are alot of mathematical equations which go into designing the structure. This math is based on logic, which allows precise predictions to be made. So logic is demonstrated and proves itself in reality time and time again.<br /><br />You say logic doesn't exist, can't be proven and is irrelevant, and then turn around and attempt to use it to back up your claims. That doesn't make sense.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-90439258386008664142013-11-24T22:12:42.923-06:002013-11-24T22:12:42.923-06:00Planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light a...Planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light are proven to exist and there effects can be witnessed and demonstrated. Nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist.<br /><br />I'm not saying the supernatural doesn't exist, it very well might. Just like Spider-Man might exist in an alternate universe. But I'm not the one making the claim, so the burden of proof isn't on me to prove it doesn't exist. But from my knowledge of practical reality, I have no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural, just like I have no reason to believe that an alternate universe exist in which Spider-Man lives. If I claim that the supernatural doesn't exist, it's my responsibility to present evidence that it doesn't.<br /><br />There is no evidence that no one has ever been abducted by aliens. You just can't make a claim, present any old thing and call it evidence. And then if i don't accept it, accuse me of moving the goalpost. Once again, the evidence must, it must be proportional to the claim. If I tell you I had dinner last night at a resturaunt on the planet Jupiter, i can't just give you a newspaper article about me eating dinner on Jupiter as evidence. The most rational assumption, based on the situation, is that the article is fake, unless you have reason to believe it's not. And if you don't have reason to believe it's real and refuse to accept it, I cannot then accuse you of moving the goalpost. And it's not enough that I just call the newspaper article "evidence". It has to actually BE evidence and the evidence must be proportional to the claim.<br /><br />It is true, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-4722392354252748802013-11-24T22:07:22.587-06:002013-11-24T22:07:22.587-06:00This is simply SILLY and classic: "There has ...This is simply SILLY and classic: <i>"There has not been ONE, NOT ONE CONFIRMED, VERIFIED RESURRECTION OF ANYONE RETURNING FROM A STATE OF PERMENANT DEATH!!!! No, NOT ONE!!!"</i><br /><br />LOL...what is a "state of permanent death"???LOL-LOL-LOL!!!!!! DEATH is permanent until it is interrupted!!!! My goodness....FOTFL!!!!! JESUS interrupted death my friend. Plain and simple. Just like I never been to the moon and believe because of the preponderance of the evidence and my own personal experience which cannot be denied, declined or overturned even by the most ignorantly arrogant, That can't be overturned either.<br /><br />You DO however believe that living and biological matter arises from non-living matter and then goes on to produce complex and intact systems which even at some point demands empirical "proof" for the existence of all things including itself. You also believe that the information necessary to begin this process is just there and find its way into cells, once they are created, to tell other cells how to arrange themselves. the information necessary for all this just appears over billions and billions of years. That's what YOU believe isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong. <br /><br />OK...if you agree with that it looks like you've passed all degree of rational....If rocks can create life and morality in any way, that would be the business-LOL....anyway, you said this too:<br /><br /><i>I don't know how you are defining a mind, if you mean thoughts, they are products of bio-chemical processes that go on in our brain. Purely physical, there's nothing magic or spooky about it"</i><br /><br />So why don't you get a needle, place it in your brain. or brain stem, wherever these thoughts and memories are supposed to housed, extract one or two, place them under a microscope and tell em what you see? Ooh, they are just chemical processes you say???...then what is the mechanism or interface by which they are converted? In addition, would that not require a continual functioning of the body to happen? If so, why is it that dead people who have come back to life, (which you totally look over ALL THE NDE EVIDENCE that exists to make your silly postulations) have, in many cases, NEW and INTACT memories. Similar to Joshua Mantz as DOCUMENTED above???? <br /><br />Like I said, you need to go back to atheist school because EVERY atheist and their mamma knows this one ain't true: <i>And logic can be demonstrated. That's how we can do exact sciences like mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology. All are based in logic, which can be demonstrated, tested, and confirmed!</i><br /><br />Logic CANNOT be proven because in order to do so, one has to USE logic. Get it??? It would be a LOGICAL FALLACY to prove logic called circular reasoning. I didn't say "demonstrated"...I said PROVEN....Logic can only be assumed ie: TRUSTED uuh ooh...you mean in order to use logic, you have to have FAITH in it???? In addition, Logic is NOT empirical and cannot be perceived scientifically... <br /><br />There is PLENTY of evidence for my claims. Like I said, this forum is on fornication and biblical construct, not evidence for Christianity or theism...I have tried to say it, but it is IGNORANCE for you to even argue what you are arguing here. It has nothing to do with the topic. Use one of the other forums and at least try to stay on track with the topic. Someone else may want to actually deal with the MAIN ISSUE and you are convoluting the page with a bunch of ALREADY DEBUNKED materialistic GARBAGE!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-45933851319364121162013-11-24T21:56:53.562-06:002013-11-24T21:56:53.562-06:00Keep in mind, I'm more than willing to admit I...Keep in mind, I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong about the existence of the supernatural, about Bishop Hines supposed claim of resurrection, as long as the evidence is adequate to show I'm wrong. Keep in mind, like any rational person, for supernatural claims I have HIGH standards of evidence and I will scrutinize it very hard, due to the nature of the claim. Just like I would take your word for it that you went to a resturaunt last night, I'm also going to scrutinize you very hard if you say you went to a resturaunt on the planet Jupiter last night or was raised from the dead. And since i'm not a baby, but an adult, I'm not going to just believe whatever wild claim someone tells me.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-71380176969270778412013-11-24T21:39:35.143-06:002013-11-24T21:39:35.143-06:00The reason FM said that he didn't like the art...The reason FM said that he didn't like the article was that because his materialistic handlers haven't told him the truth about empiricism and scientism. The article said this about 3 valid reasons that the "evidence" requirement often fails:<br /><br /><b>"a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving “hard evidence” yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.<br />b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.<br />c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial. This is true for instance, of the alleged mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien abductees. So even when something leaves a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.</b><br /><br />This also leads us into knowing why the goalpost moves. It must move because a materialist is trying to analyze a full world using half information. Just too much for me....LOL!!!! District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-79643083572138861972013-11-24T21:38:04.920-06:002013-11-24T21:38:04.920-06:00Ok, the bible makes alot of claims, many of which ...Ok, the bible makes alot of claims, many of which there is no evidence for and many of which are just wrong. Saying that something happened in the bible, is not proof of anything. As for your moon analogy, there is abundant evidence for man going to the moon. You can ignore the evidence if you want, but guess what??? The evidence that man has been to the moon matches the claim!!! It rises to meet the standard! <br /><br />There has not been ONE, NOT ONE CONFIRMED, VERIFIED RESURRECTION OF ANYONE RETURNING FROM A STATE OF PERMENANT DEATH!!!! No, NOT ONE!!! If there has been give me where I can go read about it so I can judge it for myself. If it can't be perceived scientific or through the senses, I won't believe it until someone produces evidence that there is something there to believe. I won't believe in the invisible dragon that lives in your closet, just like I won't believe in someone being raised from the dead. Not without the appropiate evidence. No reasonable person would believe any such thing without evidence.<br /><br />I don't know how you are defining a mind, if you mean thoughts, they are products of bio-chemical processes that go on in our brain. Purely physical, there's nothing magic or spooky about it. And logic can be demonstrated. That's how we can do exact sciences like mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology. All are based in logic, which can be demonstrated, tested, and confirmed! How the bible was put together is another story for another time. <br /><br />All your claims are based purely on faith, there's no evidence to back it up. There is none to back up Bishop Hines claim of raising from the dead, there is none for the existence of anything supernatural! As for cars, well, I can actually go and see a car, I can easily verify it's existence. I never seen a germ before, but there's abundant evidence that they exist, and there affects can be witnessed and demonstrated.<br /><br />Your car analogy fails, because even if I never saw a car before, I can easily verify it's existence. And even if I disbelieved the existence of cars, whoever is making the claim to me would have no problem demonstrating the existence of a car. I got my first Ipod in 2003. Before then, I had no idea what an Ipod was. But if it was described to me, even though I never seen it, I would know that based on what I know about reality, it is very probable that Ipod's indeed exist, even though I had never seen one before. And, if I wanted to, I could easily go to any electronics store and verify the existence of Ipods. If I want to, I can find out how Ipod's work. So you can't reasonably compare technology which I never seen before, but have every reason to believe exist to someone being risen from the dead, which I have every reason to believe is impossible until shown otherwise.<br /><br />There is nothing illogical about demanding evidence for fantastic claims. I'll go so far as to say that you do it too.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-29864719863488166042013-11-24T21:03:42.389-06:002013-11-24T21:03:42.389-06:00You said: "There is no default position of sk...You said: <i>"There is no default position of skepticism? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I am supposed to believe wild claims just because someone says the and claims they are true."</i><br /><br />I have never been to the moon. Others have. They show film but that could be of anyplace. Hollywood is Hollywood. Why should I believe that man has traveled to the moon? Your rationale is NOT healthy and it is not reasonable. I could be a skeptic about moon travel. U have never spoken to an astronaut nor have I ever interviewed a NASA employee. Why should I believe ANY of what is in text books or the paper...<b>Do you see how SILLY I sound?</b><br /><br />At some point, one is just SILLY to argue for PROOF for everything when there is overwhelming and abundant testimony for and about it.When the first car was created, I am sure it was a mystery to many. Do you think folk who had never owned a car before said, "I won;t believe it until I ride in and see it myself"? That would be DUMB!!!! Folk accepted what was said, as fanciful as it was at the time, and when they had money and opportunity to obtain one, they got one and rode in it. <br /><br />There is more to analyzing truth than scientific method. Everything cannot be perceived scientifically or through the senses. As I stated much earlier, noone can prove mind. Noone can prove logic. Neither is empirically verifiable. <br /><br />The CLAIM that Jesus rose from the dead is not a problem if he is God as he stated. He has DEMONSTRATED that he is God through his acts which are preserved better than any other historical record of nearly anything in antiquity. The evidence surrounding his acts and actions including dates, times, places locations are all found to be clandestine and specific to the time stated. They are unique. The word itself has little to no redaction and form criticism has been found to have NO TREAD against scriptures. Archaeology verifies statements found within the testimony of scriptures and if that was not enough, UNLIKE the book of Mormon, or the Quran (since you bring those up) the Bible was written over 2500 years by no less than 40 different authors many of who did not know one another, in a congruent theme and message. This becomes an important algorithm in determining truth. It is not witnessed nor is it instituted by one person and the stories contained within it are not exclusive to it. There are historical records found in other societies which run tangent to the bible narrative as an incidental verification of certain facts. <br /><br />To DENY these things is to simply resign one's self to live in ignorance. <br /><br />neither Thor nor Vishnu make a promise to do anything for me or us. No other claimed deity commits themselves to be there for us in any way. Why would we attribute acts to them that they did not claim to commit? Again that is IRRATIONAL. I write about that here as I discuss CAT DIED: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/<br /><br />So NO, I would not have to "investigate" any claim simply because someone said something. You are so busy looking for logical fallacies that you have assumed the MOST illogical opposition...that is called the logical fallacy of ignorance and denial. District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-85380417795098723272013-11-24T19:57:48.889-06:002013-11-24T19:57:48.889-06:00There is no default position of skepticism? I'...There is no default position of skepticism? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I am supposed to believe wild claims just because someone says the and claims they are true. I mean, if Bishop Hines said he flys around like Superman, I ought to just shut up and believe that too. I should just believe anything anyone tells me! Yep, that's what I'll do from now on!<br /><br /><br />We use standards of evidence everyday, I worked as a cop and securing evidence is my job. The court system operates off of standard of evidence, so does scientific investigation. A standard of evidence has to be met before someone is declared guilty or not guilty. If that standard of evidence cannot be met, they are presumed not guilty! As a cop, I need at least probable cause to make an arrest, a standard of evidence that says the person in question at least probably committed a crime!<br /><br />The only reason why you want to believe Bishop Hines claims is because you WANT them to be true. You're emotionally invested in them being true, so you special plead for them. I guarantee that if he was attributing his so-called resurrection to Allah, Vishnu, Thor or some other god, you'd be just as skeptical as I am. If the circumstances were exactly the same, except he says Thor raised him from the dead, you would disbelieve by default until he was able to produce solid evidence to match his claim of being raised from the dead. If he showed you "medical papers", since the claim is far fetched, the most rational thought would be the papers are phony until he could prove the papers to be genuine. You would want to interview witnesses in detail, you would want to determine the credibility of those witnesses, you would want to see camera footage. You would want to interview paramedics who were on the scene. You would want to know what medical procedures they used. You would want to find out was he clinically dead, meaning did his vitals just stop, or was he indeed biologically dead, meaning permenantley deceased. You would want to interview doctors to find out their expert opinion on whether it would've been possible to resuscitate someone in his condition using medical means or could only an act of God do it. You would want to find out if he was declared dead and how they knew he was dead.<br /><br />You would INVESTIGATE!!!!! You wouldn't just accept his claim of "Thor raised me from the dead" and you know you wouldn't. You would require a minimum standard of evidence before you accept that explanation. Also, if he claimed Thor resurrected him, you would wonder, if this is a genuine resurrection, why isn't this attracting the attention of doctors and scientists from around the world? Why don't they think enough of his claim to at least ask him some questions? You would say "Hmmm, this sure is odd that no one is paying this any attention, after all, it isn't everyday that someone comes back from the dead!" You would say "A confirmed and bonafide resurrection is of historical and scientific importance, why isn't anyone writing anything down about this?"<br /><br />But the reason you aren't asking those questions is because he is attributing that claim to your God and you need it to be true. If it were to another god, or if he claims he spontaneously resurrected, you wouldn't just accept the claim. That, my friend, is the logical fallacy known as special pleading. You're making a special case exemption for your situation without having a logically valid reason.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-58319779062659319592013-11-24T19:11:51.443-06:002013-11-24T19:11:51.443-06:00As the article states, and I TOTALLY agree, eviden...As the article states, and I TOTALLY agree, evidentialists simply move the goalposts for what it takes to satisfy your doubts. This is called scientism. No matter what you will believe that it is simply a "scientific mystery" and that you will know as further science is discovered. That is DISINGENUOUS and not real. The interesting thing is that at one time people believed that the earth was flat, no so much as because the bible said it. Because the bible DID NOT say that. It was through and by scientific OBSERVATION that the conclusion was formed.<br /><br />That is just one issue with materialism. There is more to evidence than what can be viewed and or determined through scientific means because what can be observed can be wrong. <br /><br />So what you have to say should be said in another forum. Who goes to a forum on "fornication" and argues for materialism???District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-65479617800711725982013-11-24T19:11:38.798-06:002013-11-24T19:11:38.798-06:00"Ok, where is the proof he has? And does his ...<i>"Ok, where is the proof he has? And does his proof meet the standard of evidence that is required for such a claim?"</i><br /><br />Call his office. It is open daily and I am sure he will be glad to entertain you and your questions, meet with you and show you the PROOF. In addition, There is no "standard of evidence" to make any claim. That is just as imaginary as the myth of materialism and an imaginary requirement. Either it happened or it didn't. <b>Well, it happened. Now what?</b> <br /><br />And there is no "default position" of skepticism either. That GARBAGE is straight out of new atheist camps from people like John Loftus and such the like. That is the most CRAP ever. It is not a "default" for us to not believe what is being said or told us. Like we are some type of preprogrammed computer without freewill...Well I forgot, under materialistic constructs, we DON'T have any free will. It is an illusion. You don;t believe because you are not supposed to believe. Because it is not in your gene pool to believe...GARBAGE!!!!!!! More speculation and MYTH. In fact what that is a prepackaged excuse that eases the conscience. It's a trick to tell people, "If I doubt, God made me this way"....Every sinner wants that so that they can excuse their love of SIN. That's all that is. <br /><br />In truth, it is the opposite. We are believing people until we have reason not to believe. A baby will believe a person even though they may challenge what is being told by acting to the contrary but they need no proof to believe. Look at some children. Tell them not to touch a stove. Not every one needs to touch it to believe that it is hot. Some do. If non-belief was default, then instructions and discipline should not exist. There is no reason to believe any instructions. That is the danger of believing your type of MYTH. It only leads to self destruction and subjective truth. <br /><br />Funny thing is that even atheists like Michael Shermer are willing to adjust their position of skepticism if they feel they are in need enough. http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2010/06/miracle-of-healing-vs-skepticism.html<br /><br />He would believe in miracles "if" he felt he needed on bad enough...Totally SELF SERVING! Rank and radical skepticism is simply not normal and or reasonable. <br /><br />Then to try to tell others that their experience is invalid is arrogant and silly at best. You know NOTHING but the thoughts in your head and they are not superior to anyone else's experience. <b>Joshua Mantz DIED as documented by CNN and in OFFICIAL US MILITARY RECORDS!</b> There was no religious reason or presupposition. This man awoke with IN TACT and DETAILED memories which is also an medical impossibility. So you know little about the subject of miracles and returning from death to life. How can you make a whole case so arrogantly and confidently off of the little info that you have and that little is full of flaws?? That is irrational. Here is the article and the VIDEO of this man telling his own indisputable story: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2010/05/miracle-of-life-after-death.html<br /><br />I could tell you don't know much but the real proof of that is that is that you don't know about abiogenesis. Then what you are trying to pull over me and the audience here? You can't possibly be serious. Because if you don't know how life came from material matter, as there is is no way to bring life from material matter without a SUPERNATURAL cause, then you are the Ostrich I mentioned. <br /><br />Further, rocks simply don't develop morals. Show me an evil tree or rock and we can talk, until then you need to STUDY what you think you believe...It is nothing more than a SUPERSTITION: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2011/04/superstition-of-atheism.html District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-57118324890945727732013-11-24T17:50:07.805-06:002013-11-24T17:50:07.805-06:00I read that site and what it seems like they'r...I read that site and what it seems like they're trying to say is that extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence, by accusing people who say that of moving the goalpost, etc. Allow me to just say this, an extraordinary claim is a claim made outside of what we (most reasonable people) know to be true outside of our everyday reality. The person who wrote that page probably won't believe Muhammad flew to Mecca on a magic unicorn and I'm sure, as a reasonable person, they would need a minimum amount of evidence in order to believe it.<br /><br />They're just playing word games and acting like we can't know what an extraordinary claim is in comparison to an ordinary claim. Well, maybe they can't, but the rest of us can. Personally, I'm not moving the goalpost. If Bishop Hines came back to life he came back to life, but I still need to see evidence of it before i believe it and the evidence has to meet a minimum standard in proportion to the claim. And frankly, people lie all of the time, people embellish details all of the time, people commit frauds and hoaxes all of the time, those are much more plausible explanations than him coming back from death, which is the most far fetched explanation there is.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-12819428124305387932013-11-24T17:23:12.885-06:002013-11-24T17:23:12.885-06:00How have you demonstrated people can come back fro...How have you demonstrated people can come back from the dead, simply repeating someone who claims to have came back from the dead and claiming you saw records of it, isn't demonstrating that someone came back from the dead. That doesn't even begin to meet the standard of evidence that is required to prove someone can come back from the dead.<br /><br />As far as abiogenisis goes, I don't know much about it, but I will say this: debunking abiogenisis or evolution does not therefore prove the creation story as told in the bible. If that's what you're trying to do, you're committing 2 logical fallacies. 1. Argument from ignorance and 2. False dilemma fallacy. The argument from ignorance is just inserting a random answer because you don't know the answer to a question. A false dilemma is eliminating all other possible explanations, to make your explanation the correct one. If evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, it still doesn't mean that the creation story in the bible is correct. The Quran's creation story may be correct, the Hindu creation story could be correct, there could be another scientific explanation that we don't know about yet, Superman could've created the universe in 1995 from the fortress of solitude.<br /><br />So it's not enough to debunk evolution, it's not even enough to say the universe was intelligently designed. You have to demonstrate that your creation claim, the biblical creation claim, is the correct one. Otherwise, you're just making claims and I can make a claim that Superman created the universe from the fortress of solitude using a universe making machine. I would have to demonstrate that claim to be true, I don't get to say "Well, evolution is wrong, therefore Superman".<br /><br />Conversely, if the biblical creation story was thoroughly debunked tomorrow, that doesn't prove evolution right. Evolution still has to be demonstrated.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-54808619394376496742013-11-24T17:22:54.096-06:002013-11-24T17:22:54.096-06:00Ok, where is the proof he has? And does his proof ...Ok, where is the proof he has? And does his proof meet the standard of evidence that is required for such a claim? The more incredible the claim, the more incredible the evidence needs to be! If I told you I went out to dinner last night, you probably would believe me, assuming there was no evidence to the contrary or you didn't know me to be a pathological liar. That's a common claim and people go out to dinner all the time. Right now, at this moment, we can go to a resturaunt and observe people eating dinner.<br /><br />If I told you I had dinner last night with President Obama, unless I were an important politician or someone of "importance", you'd probably be skeptical of my claim and would need some sort of evidence to verify my claim, like say photographs of me with President Obama or maybe a news article from a reputable newspaper or magazine.<br /><br />Now, if I tell you I had dinner at a Fridays resturaunt on the planet Jupiter, you will not believe me at all. Why won't you believe me, I made a claim, it must be true? Right? What if I were a bishop? Does that settle it? I would say that you would not believe me. Why not? Because what I am claiming goes against everything you know to be true about reality. The standard of evidence that I would have to produce to convince you to believe my claim of having had dinner at a Friday resturaunt located on the planet Jupiter last night, would need to be in proportion to my claim. So until I can provide suitable evidence for my claim, the default position for any reasonable person is to disbelieve my claim. I have the burden of proof, you don't have the burden of proof to debunk my claim, since I'm the one making the claim.<br /><br />With that being said, until I know all of the specifics of the situation in which Bishop Hines is claiming to be raised from the dead, and until he produces sufficient evidence that it actually happened in the way he is portraying, I will disbelieve the claim because it goes against everything I know to be true about reality. That is an incredible claim which requires incredible evidence, and without being able to thoroughly investigate it to come to a conclusion, I can't believe something like that any more than I would if he told he that he flew through the air like Superman or that he bench pressed a 747 jet plane.<br /><br />You say the natural cannot produce itself, but why can't it? Anything supernatural has to be demonstrated to exist. I'm not making the claim that the supernatural exist, so the burden of proof is not on me to prove it doesn't exist, it's on the person making the claim. So before we can attribute the cause of anything to the supernatural, we have to 1st demonstrate that there is a such thing. Otherwise, it's a nonanswer. It's like saying something was done by magic or Batman did it. Before I can claim Batman does anything, I have to 1st demonstrate his existence. I don't get to say "Well, I don't know how it happened, Batman must've done it", without showing that there even is a such thing as Batman. So, once I show that Batman exist, then we can determine what Batman does.<br /><br />fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-81663505195600910842013-11-24T14:15:30.134-06:002013-11-24T14:15:30.134-06:00Mormonism, Islam and Christianity. One may be righ...Mormonism, Islam and Christianity. One may be right, but all 3 can't be. Because each make mutually exclusive claims. our ability to even discern this is proof that we don't come from animals. Animals have no clue or care which is right. We do!<br /><br />Knowing that there is a truth is how we are created. That does not come from materialism or a bunch of chemicals in harmony. We "know" because the ability to discern has been placed in us by God. There is no materialistic mechanism to deliver truth and or morality. If there is SHOW US where it is. <br /><br />Since we are aware of law, there is a lawgiver. We don't assume that a computer program is not implemented by a programmer. How does it even remotely resemble science or a pursuit of higher intelligence to claim that morality and knowledge of right and wrong simply evolved. If it did, evolution is wrong. Why? The most praised and highly valued values among humans are those that go totally contrary to materialistic tenets. Materialism teaches selfishness is who the species is advance. The most praised and widely hailed valued among humans are SELFLESS values. <br /><br />If materialism is correct, we should all hate and seek to dominate. Community or no community, domination works in our own natural selection self interest. However, in society the most PRAISED values are values of humility and communion in peace with others. <br /><br />Simply put, the materialistic construct upon which you build your premises is nothing more than a self delusionary MYTH. It does not fit the facts. <br /><br />So how do we know? What is our epistemology? First we know there is a truth. If we didn't know that, there could be no communication with anyone over anything. Secondly, we are able to perceive truth. If we didn't believe that, why communicate. Third, theism is the BEST answer to why and how e can even perceive and know truth. Since I have demonstrated that materialism has no identifiable mechanism or proof for how truth is known, the only reasonable alternative is a theistic or God FILLED view of the issue. <br /><br />We can distinguish the differences between the religions, but that is not the forum and I have allowed you to stray far enough off the topic as it is. <br /> <br /> District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-72432027643631189002013-11-24T14:01:52.104-06:002013-11-24T14:01:52.104-06:00Also, here is more on that "Extraordinary &qu...Also, here is more on that "Extraordinary "DEBUNKED" claims" garbage: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page2.htmDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-21262807928405412652013-11-24T13:57:24.642-06:002013-11-24T13:57:24.642-06:00First, Darrell Hines HAS proof. It's not an an...First, Darrell Hines HAS proof. It's not an anecdote and that term is still offensive and unwarranted only indicates folk who insult others and who are pious in their own minds. Other folks experiences are VALID. not mere anecdotes. As stated Hines has medical record, and was tracked by the news. So your information is INCORRECT. <br /><br />In addition, many people are resuscitated who were dead and come back with new and fully intact memories. This is called near Death Experiences or NDE's. Both Hine's experience (and the experience of many others) MEET your criteria whether world news or not: <i> there'd be multiple scientific, peer reviewed papers written on this and it would be very well documented."</i> I don;t know how many "peer reviewed" papers there are but I have personally seen the evidence. Not only his testimony, but the evidence. He was DEAD 45 minutes and is now alive...So just because your last name is Ostrich, doesn't men the rest of us have to live with our heads stuck in the sand. I see "De Nile" is more than just a river in Egypt. then as "if" the internet is the sole repository of info...you are out there!!!! <br /><br />The best proof of the existence of the supernatural is the natural. The natural CANNOT produce itself. Natural laws simply don't start themselves. The best cause of the existence of natural laws is a supernatural cause. That is pretty basic and NEVER satisfactorily addressed by any materialist, whether scientist or not and I have seen mostly all the modern scientific meandering around this issue. <br /><br />In addition, you offer David Hume's and Carl Sagan's old refuted "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...First, this isn't even a real argument or retort. What is "extraordinary evidence"? All this is is an effort to SOUND smart. It is silly, as no matter what evidence is present, the goal is always pushed back a step to say , "that's not extraordinary" In other words this is a SILLY retort unless the skeptic is willing to define, evidence then we see how silly they are...Some say, "I will only accept video evidence" when most of history is not videotaped. I had one say that to me...that is silly....<br /><br />in addition, the materialists are chocked and hogtied by their own silliness...<b>There is NO EVIDENCE for abiogensis...If the materialist state that all living things came from non living matter which is the claim, where is the EXTRAORDINARY evidence to support that claim? IT DOES NOT EXIST.</b><br /><br />So In this, I have demonstrated that the supernatural exists by means of causation. Natural laws don't and can't possibly cause themselves. They are not self causing agents. <br /><br />Secondly, I have demonstrated that folk can come back from death, with EVIDENCE, which is available from him, of Darrell Hine's 45 minute MEDICALLY VERIFIED death who's records I HAVE personally seen. and the evidence of NDE's which are only named "near death" because medicine doesn't understand what happened to folk who are clinically dead and have come back to life and refuses to admit that they were not "near death" but were actually DEAD. <br /><br />Third, I have demonstrated that the extraordinary claim criteria, is insufficient and not a real or valid objection and if true invalidates nearly all of material science as we know it, especially the origin of life thesis under any materialistic construct.<br /><br />I'll tell you what, you are entitled to believe what you want and assert what you will, but when you find or come across a GOOD argument that affirms materialism...PLEASE let me know!. District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-71167004182100783802013-11-24T00:28:15.834-06:002013-11-24T00:28:15.834-06:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidencefmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-59399974201153984562013-11-24T00:10:00.955-06:002013-11-24T00:10:00.955-06:00First of all, Darrell Hines made a claim of being ...First of all, Darrell Hines made a claim of being raised from the dead. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being resurrected from death. I mean, if something like that happened, it wouldn't occur in a vacuum. A genuine, bonafide resurrection would be worldwide news, scientists around the world would be studying this, there'd be multiple scientific, peer reviewed papers written on this and it would be very well documented. What probably happened was his heart stopped and with medical treatment, they got him going again. Clinical death can be reversed and it happens in hospitals all of the time. It is biological death that can't be reversed. I just googled Darrell Hines raised from the dead, and I found nothing except his website. If it were true, I'd at least be able to find something on the internet about it. As I said, that would be extremely well documented. And Darrell Hines would be immortally famous as the 1st and only confirmed and verified resurrection, ever, in human history. Someone being resurrected from the dead is up there with discovering a city hidden in a dark corner of the planet Mars. And cancer is known to resolve itself naturally in rare cases. Am I saying that there was nothing supernatural involved? No. What I am saying is that when there is a natural explanation to be had, it's probably the natural explanation which is the answer until it can be proven otherwise.<br /><br />I stand by my statement of calling personal experiences anecdotal evidence, because thats what it is. If you or any of your congregation claims you had something supernatural happen to you, i reserve skepticism until you can produce evidence. 1st, we have to determine if anything supernatural exist, and then we can work from there.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-76931565477757545372013-11-23T23:51:45.699-06:002013-11-23T23:51:45.699-06:00I think that me knowing that loving my neighbor me...I think that me knowing that loving my neighbor means don't slash his throat has nothing to do with any type of religion. That's just common sense. I stand by my statement that without a method to interpret the bible, all interpretation is just opinion. Some may be more valid than others, but it is all just opinion. In fact, I'll go 1 step further. The Mormons claim the book of Mormon is the word of God, Muslims claim the Quran of the word of God, Christians say the Bible is the word of God. Without any objective demonstration, how am I supposed to know which one is? I mean, it all is a matter of faith, but no one can claim that theres is the fact and all others are wrong, unless they can somehow demonstrate it....through a clear and convincing demonstration. And saying God put the truth in our hearts, isn't a demonstration. That's just making a claim. First you have to define what is "true" and how you know it to be true. Then, we can move onto the rest.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.com