Summations Only

Without bothering to look up the person who posted the above, my impression is that the list was composed by an ***** with an agenda.

ABE:

Oops, I see that it was you.

Self censored.

Edited by NoNukes, : Self censored.

I thought I would comment on a couple of the statements that look more ridiculous.

1) People known as Christians would be made out to look as ignorant and stupid as possible. Much of it would be their own fault, for they would try and live as believers and as worldly people at the same time.

I submit that more of this would happen if Jesus and Satan were provably unreal, since the description of ignorance would be justified.

3) People who practiced and studied occult and ancient mystery religions would be quite intellectual and bemused by all of the hoopla over supernatural reality. They would consider it all an exercise in intellectual mystic states of achievement.

Again, this would seem to be something more likely to happen if Jesus were not real.

5) The Bible would be ridiculed and scorned for its fantasy, yet concepts such as alternative universes and the Tao of Physics would be reverently considered.

Again, there is no reason to believe this would increase with Jesus being real.

8) Anytime that the topic was brought up, people would attempt to either refute the basic message or distract attention from it.

Total crap. This would occur either way, and I expect it would happen on a more frequent basis if Jesus were not actually real. In fact this particular item makes the entire list suspect as being mere agenda.

But why expose it? (or fight it)what motive would there be? In your mind, what threat does scripture pose for modern "enlightened" thought?

Why do kids who cling to a belief in Santa Claus for a bit too long get ridiculed by their peers? Is it because belief in Santa is a threat, or is it because silly actions draw ridicule?

I have no idea where you get the idea that ridicule is in only in response to being threatened. Surely there are other reasons.

And I would thus judge you as having a natural mind...not a spiritual one. silliness is in the eyes of the critic.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that belief in Jesus is silly. I believe in Jesus. The example illustrates that ridicule can be created because the object of belief is not real, which is contrary to your claim that it can not.

Now if I were using your kind of hyper-literal logic, I'd have to assume that you believe in Santa Claus.

Thus I assert that you call this silly because you do not, can not, and/or will not consider or attempt to understand it.

And I say you are unable to read and follow an argument. I did not make any such call. Instead, I contrasted the situations from when Jesus was real and not belief to show you that your assumption that being real draws more ridicule was quite likely wrong.

Edited by NoNukes, : Tone down

In your mind, what threat does scripture pose for modern "enlightened" thought?

I see that I did not answer this question. I would suggest that scripture poses no threat for people who don't believe that Jesus is real. Scripture is threatening to Christians who ostensibly believe in Jesus yet don't feel any impetus to follow Jesus example.

James 2:17 NIV

"In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

As a Faith/Belief topic, I think that it is well allowed that the Bible be used as a piece of evidence, if we can even agree on what evidence means in a faith belief context.

Actually, you are not in the Faith/Belief section. You are in a science forum. That said, I don't think non sequitors belong in the Faith/Belief section either.

The problem with your list continues to be that for the majority of it, you cannot link the conclusions to your premise. Also the final statement suggests that when we debate you and point out problems such as this one, that we are actually proving your point. And that's total nonsense.

He would probably also have a lot to say about gun control, income inequality, wars of aggression, Guantanamo Bay, and our skewed political system

Perhaps. But it seems that the last time Jesus was here that he had a lot more to say about the Jews and their religious system than he had to say about the Romans and their political system.

we agree that initially at least, Jesus mission was for and to the Jews..correct?

Let's try a short cut first. I am somewhat familiar with what dispensation believers think. Before you get into that kind of argument, perhaps you should show me that whatever dispensation system you are advocating is Bible based.

No need to lead me one step at a time. I can handle simple instructions.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

CL Stam explains it best. No need to read the book...browse it and you will see a basic pattern.

Seriously? Go read a book is your answer to a question you are supposed to respond to yourself?

Not happening.

My point is that Jesus needs to be more than "real" simply as a great human example of what to do. Jesus being real implies that the resurrection has and had a power to change peoples lives

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

I'm not sure getting answers out of you is worth the effort. I'm dropping out of active participation in this thread for awhile to see if anyone else can make any sense out of what you post.

My point is that Jesus needs to be more than "real" simply as a great human example of what to do. Jesus being real implies that the resurrection has and had a power to change peoples lives

I see now that I was mistaken. Your statement above was indeed meant to answer my question. And the answer is that you believe that Jesus being more than a great example with Whom God was well pleased actually means ignoring Jesus example. Like many dispensers, you have embraced a religion in which the difficult, action, parts of the New Testament apply only to Jews.

Well at least you are honest about it.

Sure there are loads who say they follow Jesus, but this is what Jesus said on numerous occasions: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

I understand your point, but is what you say really accurate? Did Jesus actually say this on numerous occasions? This story is told in Luke and Matthew, but isn't that the same incident?

Jesus also asked his disciples to leave their families, but I don't take that to mean that Jesus values deadbeat dads.

Your answer simply means you didn't understand the question. A square is a geometric form just like a circle. They are by definition different, and therefore it is impossible to make a square into a circle and retain being a square.

If you are going to preen, you ought at least be right about something.

You are right when you say that you cannot square a circle using a computer. But your attempt to skewer your opponent reveals that you know just as little about the problem as he does.

The 'square the circle' problem is to construct, using only a straight edge and compass, a square having the equivalent area of a given circle. Turning a square into circle or equating the two has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is intractable because addressing the problem requires multiplication by a multiple of root pi using the tools given.

Using a computer fails because only the compass and straight edge are allowed. Period.

You are dismissed.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Therefore, according to the law of identity it is impossible for a square to be a circle or a circle to be a square.

True. However the problem with such a statement as a response to a statement regarding squaring a circle on a computer is that despite being true the statement does not address the reason why you cannot solve the problem on a computer. More specifically, the poster did not make any improper statements about squares and circles being the same.

But secondarily, if there was any doubt about the issue before this post of yours, it is pretty clear that you had no idea what 'squaring the circle' meant. And yet that lack did not stop your pompous lecture.

In my answer I explained that they could not, because of the law of identity.

Which is, of course, not the reason why you cannot square a circle on a computer or anywhere else. You can, for example, solve the analogous problem of constructing a triangle with the same area as a given square without a square and a triangle being the same.

Nor did I need to explain why he couldn't do it as I was using that particular reference metaphorically as an example of an impossibility. He asserted that he could do something which is specifically listed as an impossibility in all the sources I could find.

He gave an answer in response to your asking him if he could square a circle. You brought it up. A review of your message reveals that the topic was not identity but impossibility.

Your claim is that my correction to you is off topic because the topic is 'identity'. Is identity indeed the obstacle to 'squaring a circle'? No. So the issue was not relevant when you brought it up. Is it actually possible to produce a drawing or calculate the side of a square whose are is equal to a circle on a computer. Yes, and doing so does not require equating a circle and a square.

What you are insisting on is the right to make irrelevant statements in defense of your point, and then to call corrections to your irrelevant statements off topic. You believe that the rules of these forums protect your irrelevant statements in such a way.

Nor did I need to explain why he couldn't do

No you did not need to do that. But you tried it anyway and failed.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.