A forensic investigator would not mistake oral or written testimony with actual forensic evidence. That’s exactly what you are doing.
That verifiable evidence would be the empirical evidence, not your anecdotal account of going to the post office.
1 Like
Put us on the stand. Testimony is evidence if it is true – that is why perjury is a felony. Also remember the distinction between empirical evidence and scientific empirical evidence. I went to the post office yesterday morning. Trust that I am telling the truth, or don’t. You are a jury of one.
Testimony is evidence in a court of law, but it isn’t empirical evidence.
There is no difference.
The jury of one says that your story of going to the post office is not empirical evidence.
1 Like
Empirical means it happened in reality and it is not a logical deduction or just a story or an opinion. Scientific means there is other evidence to verify it.
The jury is wrong if it decides my trip to the post office didn’t happen. Likewise the other first-person accounts.
NO!!! That is wrong. Empirical means it is the result of objective measurement and can be verified by others, either through observing the same items or following the same methods used by the previous person. It is entirely possible for something to happen in reality and not be empirically measured.
NO!!! Scientific means a conclusion is the product of the scientific method. Empirical evidence is just a part of that process, it isn’t the process itself.
That doesn’t change the fact that testimony is not empirical evidence.
1 Like
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it happened and is factual. Factual is a synonym for empirical.
I’m sure all will agree that there was a LONG line…
Yes, there were two cars ahead of me in the drive-thru. 
1 Like
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
1 Like
@moderators If anyone can delete here the chit chat between @Dale and @T_aquaticus i would be thanfull. Its off topic and it really goes long for a while
1 Like
That makes two of us. 
The empirical facts remain: God intervenes providentially into his children’s lives, as truthfully reported.
ETA: strikethrough for you, T. @T_aquaticus 
What’s the alternative? To “put rubber caps on dogs’ canines” so they don’t hurt anyone? “Freedom” for which any negative consequence is eliminated?
I don’t think you understand what you’re implying here.
You’re not “free” if you have potential for good, but not for evil.
A cow has the potential for good to provide milk (and beef), and the potential for evil to trample Aunt Bessy’s rhododendrons. Limited potential.
A dog has the potential for good to help rescue Billy out of the well, and the potential for evil to be…well, Cujo. Greater potential.
A human being has the potential for good to be Oskar Schindler, and the potential for evil to be Hitler. Much higher potential.
You would see that potential limited? We should be limited to the potential of, say, cows?
What’s better? That someone who hurts you dies in defiance, believing he/she never did anything wrong? Or gets to the point that they recognize and acknowledge the wrong that they did?
2 Likes
Couldnt care less. The damage has been already done. They are beyond forgivennes from me. Their choise their suffering and their consequenses. If they dont recognize it i wont care. If they do i wont care neither. They deserve no forgiving . God commanding people to forgive no matter what theyve done to us its irrational.
Jesus forgiving the soldiers they nailed him to the cross or the thief who mocked him was a mistake.
A real just god would have condemned them right there. Because thats what they deserved. Thats justice.
What’s the practical difference between your stance and the escalating cycle of “might makes right” coupled with retaliation/revenge?
After all, if you refuse to forgive, isn’t revenge at the best opportunity a necessary response?
3 Likes
It is and it must be.
"You must show no pitty for the guilty. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. A life for a life. "
Seems the OT God was more just than that Jesus guy dont you think?
Retaliation revenge is a must,no matter if the person realizes its mistakes it did or not. No forgiveness . No mercy. They dont deserve it.
Same goes for us. If i do something to someone i expect retaliation and revenge upon me. And im sure well prepared to accept that.
How well prepared, exactly?
We also maybe should not presume what justice for lèse-majesté, “to do wrong to majesty”, against God might entail. (One might expect some serious repercussions if they called a queen a whore to her face.) That’s something that Job did not do amidst his many sufferings:
Didnt Job in the end accused God? Or am i missing something?
Im not trying to go toe to toe with God. Im just saying that his justice system is …well.
And who am i to say that you may ask? Nobody. Just a human. A human created in HIS image . Imagine fathers taking advice from their children . Wouldnt that be a site? God might consider doing the same.
I mean there are verses which he did especially in the OT. So why not doing it again…
1 Like