Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 55 (9171 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,386 Year: 4,643/9,624 Month: 418/1,096 Week: 13/110 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living According to Christ: Is it Reasonable?
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 122 (605509)
02-20-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
02-19-2011 8:56 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
I can't think of any good reason to not become a believer and follower of Jesus today.
This is the problem, you are approaching the question ass-backwards.
The first thing you should consider when a proposal such as the existence of a god is: "Is there good reason to believe this is true?"
I don't think there is. Every attempt to support the Christian god simply fails, either through being better explained by other factors or simply crumbling from within.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 02-19-2011 8:56 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 10:39 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 122 (605832)
02-22-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by jaywill
02-22-2011 10:39 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
If I am going to be a human being I have to be one who is a Christian. That's the way I see it.
Begging the Question logical fallacy.
jaywill writes:
Who would you submit was a better example of a human being then Jesus of Nazareth?
...
See what Mahatma Ghandi or M L King, or Abe Lincoln thought about Jesus Christ.
Benjamin Franklin. For one thing we can actually be sure he did most of the things that are attributed to him; we know we are talking about a human being and not mythology.
But this portion of your argument is an "Appeal to Popularity" logical fallacy.
You need thinking lessons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 10:39 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 11:58 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 77 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:09 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 122 (605837)
02-22-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jaywill
02-22-2011 11:58 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Sorry. Jesus cared nothing for ANYTHING except the will of His Father.
That sort of blind loyalty isn't even ethical much less the height of what humans should aspire to.
jaywill writes:
And popularity is not the issue. You commit a genetic fallacy though if you say that popularity automactically disqualifies Christ from being the most respected of humans ever to walk the earth.
Thats not the point; popularity doesn't mean that what he claimed was true or even that he was a human. There is no genetic fallacy involved, you just don't seem to get the point.
jaywill writes:
So watch your own logical fallacies and don't imply that the source of the belief proves the incorrectness of the belief.
If someone makes an Argument from Popularity, pointing out the fallacy isn't itself a fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 11:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 2:17 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 122 (605839)
02-22-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jaywill
02-22-2011 12:09 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Franklin's deeds and words do not cut to the heart the way the teaching of Jesus does.
Appeal to Emotion.
jaywill writes:
It is more likely that as a defensive measure the skeptic will assign "mythology" to Jesus' life and teaching because of personal vested interest.
Or you could actually look into the subject and see that the historicity of much of Jesus's sayings and acts are of great debate and doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:09 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 122 (605848)
02-22-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jaywill
02-22-2011 12:45 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Appeal to Emotion.
I would say more Conscience than emotion.
As you wish, also a fallacy.
jaywill writes:
I noticed that Judas Isacariot had some serious doubts.
I noticed that Pontius Pilate was concerned with what was "truth" anyway ?
Appeal to Popularity. (Do you have a learning disability?)
jaywill writes:
And I noticed that Thomas said, not matter how great Jesus was, he was not going to believe in the resurrection unless he could put his fingers into the nail wounds.
Its funny that Jesus would come back to Earth to provide that sort of evidence in a completely unverifiable story but is comfortable with damning people with the same requirements today. Of course it makes perfect sense if its all just mythology...
jaywill writes:
Of course I know that the first critics of the Christian faith did not argue that Jesus never existed. Interestingly they said in essence that He could not have been MATERIAL. He was too good to be a material being and had to have been a phantasm.
I think you are severely misinformed about the criticism of Christianity. Your account doesn't even match up with your own holy book. Instead you seem to have simply ignored all criticism that didn't come from Christians themselves, which doesn't make any sense considering the point you were trying to make.
jaywill writes:
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived.
Then you are brain-dead.
jaywill writes:
No one in early 1950 questioned the Holocaust.
You are misinformed. One of the persistent criticisms of the Catholic Church is that it officially questioned and refused to recognize the genocide ongoing within the Nazi regime in return for being sponsored as the official Nazi religion.
As for a historical Jesus having existed, I think that is more likely than not. For example there is the ridiculous gyrations undertaken to put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem for his birth as the Old Testament prophecies would require, by fabricating a census that never occurred. The census idea doesn't even make sense because making everyone travel to their birthplace defeats the whole idea of a census in the first place. Its that sort of transparent fabrication that makes me think there was a historical Jesus figure, but that a large portion of his recorded acts and message are mythology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 12:45 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 1:30 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 122 (605860)
02-22-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
02-22-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
As you wish, also a fallacy.
Not really. I am not attempting rigorous "proof". I am happy just with good evidence that we are on the right track to believe.
Logical fallacies are not generally indicative of the right track to truth. You are interested in believing the truth, right?
jaywill writes:
If you want to talk about doubts a good place to start is the doubts raised about Jesus in the record of Jesus itself.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by its own assessment of itself? Thats moronic.
jaywill writes:
And you are leaning more and more to appeal to ad homs.
First of all, I'm trying to get your attention. I have pointed out flaws in your thinking and you blindly prattled on without modification. Evidently something else is required to make you perk up and take notice.
Second, those are not ad hominems. An ad hominem would be my saying that I am correct *because* you are unable to learn from being shown your mistaken thinking. Instead I am saying I am correct backed up by reasoned argument, and as a separate matter expressing derision at your inability to learn from your mistakes.
Now I am rubbing your face it them in hopes that you will start to apply yourself.
jaywill writes:
You're jumping all over the place. Argument by Outrage.
First of all you brought up Thomas, not me. So don't try to spin a line of bullshit about how I am jumping all over the place. Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.
If my point were "Jesus wasn't divine because I am pissed off!" then you would be correct. But it wasn't, and you're not.
jaywill writes:
Yes what I said matches exactly. For example John's discription of an antichrist doctrine saying Jesus did not come in the flesh.
And more impressively to me, John's personal seal at the end of his Gospel, that he did see blood and water come from the body of Jesus on the cross. Why this was so important for John to mentioned is because early opposers of the Gospel insisted that Jesus could not have been material.
John says in essence "Look, I saw blood come out His body on that cross. He was a flesh and blood man."
I don't suppose you have considered the possibility that the protests raised by, and protests addressed by, the same book being the same isn't at all impressive? Also, considering the volume of vague blather about future opposition it would be more surprising if there was some challenge that wasn't vaguely mentioned.
jaywill writes:
jaywill writes:
Within the first 1000 years or more of the rise of the Christian Gospel I can think of no one questioning that Jesus ever lived.
Then you are brain-dead.
Argument by Ad Hom.
Not so; we are talking about what you can think of, not who existed. Your inability to think of things is directly addressed by criticism of your mental faculties.
Now to the point: There were plenty of people who considered the Jesus described in the story to be a fictional personage. It may have been based in a real person, it might not have been, but the Jesus as portrayed in the story wasn't believed to have been born by many. No virgin birth, no miracles, etc.
jaywill writes:
Okay. But the operative phrase here was "ongoing". After the war ended did Rome deny that the Holocaust had occured ?
No one in early 1950 questioned the Holocaust.
Would you be attempting to shift the goalposts? Now that would be rather dishonest wouldn't it? Heck, Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust today.
Besides, we are talking about the modern era with photographs and global communication. Thats quite a bit different from Bronze Age record keeping and communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 1:30 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 3:33 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 122 (605864)
02-22-2011 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jaywill
02-22-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Based on God's utter faithfulness to His Son, we today, can rest assured that God is trustworthy.
Thats the first (and last) claim you made that wasn't pure opinion, and its completely unverifiable and extremely doubtful.
jaywill writes:
These are trustworthy words here.
That doesn't work for the Bible and it won't work for you.
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 2:17 PM jaywill has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 122 (605887)
02-22-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jaywill
02-22-2011 3:33 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
The New Testament is not fictitious by its own assessment.
To phrase it another way, "Why would you gauge if a book is fictitious by what the book has to say about itself?"
I'm going to give you a pass on this because the wording on my first post was somewhat open to misinterpretation. However I still think you are intentionally reaching with that.
jaywill writes:
If the New Testament is FALSE propoganda, then there are many many things you would expect to have been left OUT of the record.
I said mythology, not propaganda. Myths and legends don't always develop through coordinated effort, but through incremental exaggeration and fabrication. Also many myths have some factual elements left over.
jaywill writes:
The doubts raised by disciples, by Jesus' own family, etc.
This seems perfectly consistent with a scam artist who develops a following but doesn't have the family in on it.
jaywill writes:
False propoganda would more likely suppress negatives leveled at Jesus by opposers. Why furnish the reader with plausible negative information ?
For all you know this *is* the sanitized version.
jaywill writes:
It is not flattering to the disciples to know that Jesus called the leading one "Satan" one time. Nor is it flattering to know that they hadn't the courage to remain with Him in his persecution. Nor is it encouraging to thier credibility that they denied Him and fled, or that women were the first to visit His empty tomb.
Yes, the Judeo-Christian religion seems inherently masochistic doesn't it?
jaywill writes:
There is too much in the New Testament of candidness which leads to an impression that we are dealing with a truthful account rather than false propoganda.
A: Not propaganda, myth.
B: Except for any independently verifiable accounts of anything significant to back up the story.
C: Says your completely irrelevant opinion.
jaywill writes:
It is more likely that John is being faithful to record difficult sayings of Jesus possibly problematic to his (John's) theological thesis rather then suppressing what is not supportive.
Gee, wouldn't it be convenient if there was some way he could have contacted a supervisory being with all that information squared away so he could clear up that confusion? Too bad nothing like that exists ehh?
jaywill writes:
Difficult sayings of Jesus are included. Problematic sayings of Jesus are included. Contraversial sayings of Jesus are included. Potentially embaressing rumors of Jesus are included, ie. He was accused of being a winebibber, insane, beside Himself, demon possessed, His own brothers doubted His claims.
Sounds like the story casts significant doubt on itself in addition to completely lacking reliable historical support, as well as contradicting our understanding of the universe and natural law. Weren't you arguing in favor of this thing?
jaywill writes:
Another way of looking at it is that if the writers were spinning fictitious stories of someone they wanted to reader to believe in, they would SUPPRESS impossible of very difficult sayings of Jesus.
But what if they were gradually modifying stories about a being which they believe to exist but allowed their imagination to modify through belief in a sort of "extrasensory revelation" where disembodied voices or urges could guide their actions? Sort of like Ouija boards.
jaywill writes:
Thanks for the little clarification. But I still recognize references to "brain dead," "moronic" and such quips are ad homs.
Then you are wrong. They are quips, perhaps even insults, but they are not ad hominem unless the justification for an argument is based on them.
I'll add an inability to properly use logical terminology and willful ignorance to your tab.
jaywill writes:
First of all you brought up Thomas, not me. So don't try to spin a line of bullshit about how I am jumping all over the place.
I knew old potty mouth would come out sooner or latter. LOL.[/qs]
I think you have forgotten to actually make an argument or point.
jaywill writes:
Second, I'm not appealing to emotions or outrage to make my point. If the story were true then Jesus's actions would be inconsistent with his purported nature; he would be withholding evidence he happily provided in other circumstances causing people to be damned for eternity, therefore he wouldn't be considered loving or merciful.
Explain this paragraph a little more.
It seems pretty clear and concise, but I'm game to run over the basics again.
The story says that Jesus provided Thomas with direct physical proof and examination to prove the reality of his death and resurrection. There are many atheists today who happily convert if Jesus would do the same thing as done for Thomas; physically manifest himself and allow examination to prove the reality of the claim.
Yet he does not, with the reported consequences being eternal damnation. Now we know that Jesus was willing and able to do it once, so what possible reason could he have to not do it for these people? To allow people to be tortured forever simply because he can't be arsed to magic himself down to Earth for a show-and-tell session is *cruel* and inconsistent with his purported nature.
jaywill writes:
You feel you are being munipulated by clever lies in the four gospels ? I don't share that feeling.
I'm not interested in your feelings. Your feelings are, if not completely irrelevant, at least irrelevant to me. I'm interested in proof.
jaywill writes:
It just doesn't read that way to me.
Bilbo Baggins also wrote with sincerity.
jaywill writes:
I would have to figure out what was in it for them to do such a thing. Becoming disciples of this Jesus involved them in nearly nothing but serious trouble and death
Gee, I'm glad nobody else in the course of human history has died for the sake of a different faith. I would hate for such a sacrifice to be completely useless as a discerning factor.
jaywill writes:
"And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he know that he saus what is true, that you also may believe."
Scout's Honor?! Well gosh, guess that settles it.
jaywill writes:
And I asked you for names from 900 - 1400 AD. I know Bart Erhman doubts. I mean ancient doubters of miracle working Jesus of Nazareth. That Jesus was some kind of miracle worker was reported by Josephus.
First of all Josephus isn't reliable.
"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too."

- Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1048—1131)
But you don't need those names; you already said you were aware that Jesus's own family doubted him. So what are you going on about?
jaywill writes:
Now a word about Emotional appeal.
...
That should touch your emotion. And you should include consideration of His sacrificial love for you on a personal level.
And you have sunk to blatant advocation of logical fallacies. I'm going to put this is plainly as possible:
You don't think well. There are clear flaws in your thought and you are not even making an effort to fix them. This is why I won't, and nobody else should, pay any attention to what you think about things.
jaywill writes:
Your coming off at me as "More educated then Thou" only impresses me that you expect a that the most important truths man needs to know are narrowly approached by an intellectual elite.
And you appear to have no interest in intellectual honesty or coming to correct conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 02-22-2011 3:33 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2011 11:22 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 122 (606592)
02-26-2011 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jaywill
02-24-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
The Christian has the Holy Spirit Who confirms so much of what one reads in the Bible that he has confidence he is on the right track to believe.
Since when did "I feel like I'm right" become an even halfway valid justification for something like this?
jaywill writes:
I was not there when 500 disciples at one time witnessed the resurrected Jesus, as Paul reported (1 Cor. 15:6). And he wrote that most of them were alive at that time. So they could have been available to the Corinthain audience to point out Paul's fraud had Paul been lying. That's why he wrote about the 500 eyewitnesses.
Ok, a few issues here. Citing 500 unnamed witnesses of which there is no other record is no evidence at all. How many people witnessed Hercules's feats of strength?
For another thing, travel was fairly difficult in that time. If the Corinthians were given the claim "500 people saw this" not only don't they have a single name to go off of, but also may not have even been able to get to the area in question. At any rate, the Corinthians didn't really seem to have recorded any verification of the claim.
jaywill writes:
I don't believe either Jesus Christ or His apostles were scam artists.
I gathered, good for you. So what?
jaywill writes:
Whatever "version" it is it is believable. I don't think man would make up such a character as Jesus Christ even if he were able to imagine such a person, which I don't believe we are able.
Nobody cares if you think its believable. Second, you are apparently a colossal idiot because you don't think humans are capable of making up a character such as Jesus Christ.
You have to be shitting me.
jaywill writes:
A. God became real to me when I called upon the name of Jesus. This strong experience leads me to believe I am on the right track.
Good for you. The same or similar could be said for the devotees of any other religion as well. We can chalk this up to more of the meaningless statements in your ridiculously long post.
jaywill writes:
It seems obvious that the writers of the Gospels are writing with the purpose to convince the reader to believe what is being written. But they do not beg. It is very concise and matter of fact. So it is propoganda (of the true kind).
Just because its obvious they are writing to convince doesn't make it true, or propaganda. If you weren't assuming that it did then thats apparently a completely unjustified claim. Either way I don't know what you were trying to do there.
jaywill writes:
C. S. Lewis was an expert liturary critic. Lewis said the NT did not at all read like myth.
C.S.Lewis was biased, and the majority of literary critics don't agree. Furthermore appeals to authority don't make sense here, even if the style of writing at all indicated the truth of the claims written about which it does not.
jaywill writes:
God can be contacted today.
Prove it.
jaywill writes:
I'm biased. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, I have no hope.
Yes you are, apparently your world view prevents you from examining this subject with the appropriate rigor.
jaywill writes:
Fortunately, I'm sure my bias is rooted in what is real. And alternative explanations of the life of Jesus and the rise and spread of the Christian faith appear largely nonsensical to me.
Your surety of your conclusion or your ability to understand alternative explanations are only relevant as factors which hinder your analysis of the topic.
As for the rise and spread of the Christian faith, it appears to be very similar to the rise and spread of other religions. I would be curious about your ability to understand them.
jaywill writes:
I don't think the 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus could all at the same time have this "extrasensary revelation" together. That's harder to believe then the straight forward Gospel report.
Which ones were those? The unnamed, unaccounted for 500 that nobody other than the author ever interviewed?
There were 1,000 witnesses the other day that saw Jesus appear and explain that he was never crucified or resurrected. This happened somewhere in China, and no I am not telling you any names. Also, there are no independent records and you can't contact me for clarification. Now its *apparently* 2 to 1 in my favor.
jaywill writes:
These are all treasures that I have received because of believing in Jesus Christ.
Prove it.
It seems a rather odd request until you realize that everything you just listed is completely in your head. Prove you didn't just imagine those things by being told about a fictional being that never existed, and about the magical stuff that being will never actually do.
jaywill writes:
If I drop my faith in Jesus Christ (if I possibly could) and pick up your philosophy, what does your philosophy offer me in terms of these things?
And here we have it; you are holding on to your beliefs not because you have any particular confidence that they are true, but because you don't have an attractive alternative. As if comfort and appeal was the determining factor of something being true or not.
I'm not pitching a philosophy. I'm saying your beliefs about events and beings are untrue, and thus your philosophy is unjustified.
jaywill writes:
But in my case the witness within my being that Jesus was alive was very substantial.
I'm sure your imagination has been very active, and you feel very strongly about things. I don't care, that doesn't make things true.
jaywill writes:
You know, in Exodus, God appeared in a phenomenon of loud noise and fire dramatically for about 40 days. Curiously, it eventually didn't stop the Hebrews from wanting to make a golden calf and march back into Egypt "the iron furnace" of oppression.
About that.. its interesting there is no archaeological evidence to suggest those people went marching around that area at all, or Egyptian records of their coming or going despite their otherwise detailed border traffic records. Let me guess; a huge Egyptian cover up and these hordes of people didn't leave a trace?
jaywill writes:
It seems insane that Calvary should have occured in the first place if so much visible proof of the love of God had been manifested in Jesus.
And so for the sake of plausibility what can we conclude?
You almost forgot which side you are supposed to be biased toward ehh?
jaywill writes:
So I would get salvation first and then take my problems of eternal damnation to God.
Interesting that you would admit to worshiping what may well turn out to be an evil god just for the sake of mercenary gain. Other more noble people might be willing to take a moral stand despite the sacrifice.
jaywill writes:
You even agree that you SHOULD do this or that. But somehow you do not have the power to pull it off and you often do what you do not agree with.
I aspire to be greater than I am. Thats something to be respected.
On the other hand you suggest I was created sick and commanded to be well. That I am to be damned for a failing I have no ability to rectify, or part in causing. How is that moral? Thats like building a house with no frame and then cursing it when it falls down. Who is really at fault?
jaywill writes:
Triviality by association is not impressive to me.
My point there highlighted how the sincerity of a writing style is no at all indicative of the truth of the statement written. You seem to have completely missed the point.
jaywill writes:
God is not mocked.
You don't frighten me Deific pig dogs! Go and boil your bottoms son of a silly person! I blow my nose at you so called King of Kings, you and all your silly religious Knnniggits! Thbbbttt!
(Paraphrased from The Quest for the Holy Grail, and adapted for godly mocking.)
Your god is mocked aplenty, don't say such ridiculous things if you don't want to be called on them.
jaywill writes:
It does prove that they believed that He had risen from the dead. That is an important historical fact.
No, it may be a historical fact that they died (everyone did) but their reasons or loyalty are hardly fact. Surely you can conceive of the core group of followers being rounded up and executed regardless of their recanting and then the remaining followers recording them as stalwart to their deaths.
jaywill writes:
That there are other strong beliefs is not sufficient proof that the New Testament cannot be true.
Thats not the way things go. You have to have a good reason to think something is true; you don't assume that something is true until proven false.
The fact that there are strong beliefs other than in the New Testament proves that strong belief isn't something that you can use as evidence for your position. But it seems as if thats all you have to offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2011 11:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 02-28-2011 10:09 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 115 by jaywill, posted 02-28-2011 11:49 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 122 (606792)
02-28-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jaywill
02-28-2011 11:49 AM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
Sounds like something you are just making up off the top of your head.
As if letting it marinate for 2000 years is any better.
jaywill writes:
Maybe a better argument would have been to point to some multitude claiming to have seen tears coming from a statue of Mary or some such thing.
I was assuming that you are not a complete moron and have heard of other religions and their religious claims and experiences.
jaywill writes:
Back to proof again ?
Yes, that pesky thing called reality.
jaywill writes:
Did you prove that it is no longer relevant to be a follower of Christ in 2011 AD ?
Oh, its certainly relevant. Having schizophrenia is relevant in 2011 AD. Is that really all we are talking about?
jaywill writes:
I got another idea, prove to me that the man you call your father is really your biological father. And I'll show you that I can raise obections to your "proof" forever.
I don't doubt your ability to generate hypothetical objections. However to equate an event with numerous living witnesses, documentation, photographic proof, biological verification, etc... with something that happens purely within your head is ridiculous. Heck, I will even call it dishonest.
jaywill writes:
I don't count the repetitive skeptic as a participant in a conversation. It is just a posture.
I don't count the repetitive dreamer as a participant in a conversation. Its just a posture.
And thus, SNIP! You are done!
jaywill writes:
--Nothing meaningful--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jaywill, posted 02-28-2011 11:49 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 02-28-2011 12:37 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 118 of 122 (606809)
02-28-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
02-28-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Pascals Wager
jaywill writes:
The test of time is important.
I mean as one more little skeptic, do you think you'll rid the earth of the Gospel ?
The Ancient Egyptian religion persisted for more than 3000 years, yet today there are little to no believers.
I have no illusion or goal of ridding the world of Christianity. But don't think your particular superstition is eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 02-28-2011 12:37 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jaywill, posted 02-28-2011 3:35 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024