Shinzon Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 http://infidels.org/library/modern/greg_cavin/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 [snip] Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse? I have secular faith that he never had, doesn't have, and will never have a written skeptical appraisal of his religious faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 25, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2016 [snip] Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse? I have secular faith that he never had, doesn't have, and will never have a written skeptical appraisal of his religious faith. It is our lack of understanding that caused words like "faith" to exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 [snip] Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse? I have secular faith that he never had, doesn't have, and will never have a written skeptical appraisal of his religious faith. It is our lack of understanding that caused words like "faith" to exist. Ha ha...and words like "soul" too. Of course, the inside joke is my use of the word faith twice, each preceded by a different adjective, i.e., "secular faith" and "religious faith". Use of the adjectives clarify that I am using the two different common definitions of the word "faith" in the same sentence. The secular definition is trust or confidence based on prior experience and evidence. The religious definition, rooted in the Biblical definition (see Hebrews), is wishful thinking without evidence. As to Ironhorse and his claims of personal skeptical analysis of his religious faith and his promise to publish his written tome about that, my secular faith is based on specific evidence, Ironhorse's writings on this forum. Of course, his faith is religious faith, wishful thinking (instilled with indoctrination, peer pressure and other events/causes) without evidence. Indeed, despite evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 [snip] Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse? I have secular faith that he never had, doesn't have, and will never have a written skeptical appraisal of his religious faith. It is our lack of understanding that caused words like "faith" to exist. Ha ha...and words like "soul" too. Of course, the inside joke is my use of the word faith twice, each preceded by a different adjective, i.e., "secular faith" and "religious faith". Use of the adjectives clarify that I am using the two different common definitions of the word "faith" in the same sentence. The secular definition is trust or confidence based on prior experience and evidence. The religious definition, rooted in the Biblical definition (see Hebrews), is wishful thinking without evidence. As to Ironhorse and his claims of personal skeptical analysis of his religious faith and his promise to publish his written tome about that, my secular faith is based on specific evidence, Ironhorse's writings on this forum. Of course, his faith is religious faith, wishful thinking (instilled with indoctrination, peer pressure and other events/causes) without evidence. Indeed, despite evidence. Yes, please take note. Any questioning or skeptical analysis of Christianity by me should be dismissed. I can't prove Jesus came back from the dead. I just believe he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 [snip] Where's that skeptical appraisal, Ironhorse? I have secular faith that he never had, doesn't have, and will never have a written skeptical appraisal of his religious faith. It is our lack of understanding that caused words like "faith" to exist. Ha ha...and words like "soul" too. Of course, the inside joke is my use of the word faith twice, each preceded by a different adjective, i.e., "secular faith" and "religious faith". Use of the adjectives clarify that I am using the two different common definitions of the word "faith" in the same sentence. The secular definition is trust or confidence based on prior experience and evidence. The religious definition, rooted in the Biblical definition (see Hebrews), is wishful thinking without evidence. As to Ironhorse and his claims of personal skeptical analysis of his religious faith and his promise to publish his written tome about that, my secular faith is based on specific evidence, Ironhorse's writings on this forum. Of course, his faith is religious faith, wishful thinking (instilled with indoctrination, peer pressure and other events/causes) without evidence. Indeed, despite evidence. Yes, please take note. Any questioning or skeptical analysis of Christianity by me should be dismissed. I can't prove Jesus came back from the dead. I just believe he did. No, Ironhorse! Your claim (see below) to have skeptically appraised your christian faith will not be dismissed, forgotten or swept under the rug. At 4:51 p.m. October 25, 2015 Ironhorse wrote... As I have said here more than once, I have already been through the process of skeptically appraising God, the Bible, and the Christian faith. I spent several years doing that and have spent all my life trying to get to the truth of things. I don't claim to know everything about God or the scriptures, but what I know is enough for me to believe it's true. It is what I believe. Therefore, please present this skeptical appraisal to us. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Way too long for this puppy. But forwarding the cursor at random over the Craig-Cavin debate linked by Ironhorse, I landed on this, in the voice of Craig: "... the Resurrection Theory is NOT implausible once you posit that God can have raised him from the dead." Or words to that effect. Usual farting around with hypotheticals. Can someone summarize what Cavin thinks IS the most plausible explanation? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted April 29, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 29, 2016 Way too long for this puppy. But forwarding the cursor at random over the Craig-Cavin debate linked by Ironhorse, I landed on this, in the voice of Craig: "... the Resurrection Theory is NOT implausible once you posit that God can have raised him from the dead." Or words to that effect. Usual farting around with hypotheticals. Can someone summarize what Cavin thinks IS the most plausible explanation? Thanks It's at the end of the presentation: Pure Literary Construction He presented contradicting accounts between Mark and Luke to demonstrate the story's construction and evolution. Since Luke restricted the appearances of a risen Christ to the greater Jerusalem area, they couldn't follow Mark in having the Angels order the women to tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee, so he changed Mark’s original, "he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you," to, "Remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee, that the son of man..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts