Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Guest end3]

So it's kinda the love languages thing.....we would want someone to describe to us the truth in a language we would hear or could identify. Again, I ask what logical language describes love?

 

And lastly, ask youself what would it take for you to be vulnerable enough to accept another's position. For them to love you and you feel loved? Like I said, a dead horse. Giddy-up.

[Guest end3]

And where have you been hiding lately, Mr. End3?

 

I got banned for being an ass.....lol. Deservedly so. 30 days in the clink to weigh my attitude. Not sure it helped...lol.

[Akheia]

So it's kinda the love languages thing.....we would want someone to describe to us the truth in a language we would hear or could identify. Again, I ask what logical language describes love?

 

And lastly, ask youself what would it take for you to be vulnerable enough to accept another's position. For them to love you and you feel loved? Like I said, a dead horse. Giddy-up.

I could ask you the same thing. Here's the problem: I'm very open to new opinions and ideas. I've changed my mind before on subjects ranging from vaccinations to homeopathy to the death penalty to vegetarianism to free-market capitalism to the health-care industry. I'm not ashamed to listen and learn. If you had something that was actually comprehensible, then I can assure you I'd give you the greatest credence. If you had actual evidence that your holy book were true, or that your God is what you claim, or that he even exists, I'd find the matter of more than passing interest. The stakes you claim for disbelief are such that no responsible person could do otherwise.

 

But it's so much easier to believe that the person listening "just doesn't want" what you're selling than to notice flaws in the message itself. If you're telling me that I don't believe a word you say because I'm not predisposed to believe it, well DUH, genius. I correctly place the burden of proof upon YOU. There is no burden whatsoever on ME except to weigh your words against the evidence. And you have none.

 

It's also sad that you view facts as a "love language." You are committing a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion" and I'm here to call you on it. You have no facts, and so you must rely upon emotions to make your point. That's where I know your faith isn't real. You see, facts don't give a turgid shit what your "love fucking language" is. Quasars don't care how you fucking FEEL about them. Microbes won't stop to ask how you fucking FEEL about their mutations. My disbelief in the Bible is not due to feelings, but to facts. It makes historical claims that are absolutely not true. Its hero, Jesus, is very likely an amalgam of dozens of other Judean mystics running around trying to start messianic revolutions at that time, and his story is baldly plagiarized from the "miracle stories" of other gods and heroes of his era. The Bible itself makes promises that either cannot be verified or that very much can be disproven. Its followers are indisputably the most dishonest, most immoral people in the United States today as shown by crime rates and health statistics for predominantly Christian regions. Morally, its mandates are hideous, and logically, one must do contortions to make sense out of its demands. It is far, far simpler to go with the explanation that God doesn't actually exist as he is described in the Bible, that the Bible itself is no more authoritative than any other ancient book of mythology, and that even if he were real, he's certainly not worthy of anything more than contempt and rebellion. Hell, if you could even show that Jesus even existed by using contemporary writings and documentation, I'd at least give you that. But there exist no verified writings or records that even confirm his existence--outside of the Scriptures and biased, decades-after-the-fact writings. You believe in smoke and mist, shadows and lies, and you're upset that I'm not as gullible as you are? That's a hoot.

 

One of these days you'll actually read your holy book and not just cherry-pick the bits you like, and you'll see what every one of the ex-Christians here saw. "Love language?" Did your pastor try that one out on his congregation and you liked it, or did you come up with something that laughably oblivious all by yourself? Facts aren't a "love language." A "love language" is what you claim when you have no proof whatsoever, and no argument to stand on.

[blackpudd1n]

And where have you been hiding lately, Mr. End3?

 

I got banned for being an ass.....lol. Deservedly so. 30 days in the clink to weigh my attitude. Not sure it helped...lol.

 

You naughty, naughty boy!

[Guest end3]

I could ask you the same thing. Here's the problem: I'm very open to new opinions and ideas. I've changed my mind before on subjects ranging from vaccinations to homeopathy to the death penalty to vegetarianism to free-market capitalism to the health-care industry. I'm not ashamed to listen and learn. If you had something that was actually comprehensible, then I can assure you I'd give you the greatest credence. If you had actual evidence that your holy book were true, or that your God is what you claim, or that he even exists, I'd find the matter of more than passing interest. The stakes you claim for disbelief are such that no responsible person could do otherwise.

 

But it's so much easier to believe that the person listening "just doesn't want" what you're selling than to notice flaws in the message itself. If you're telling me that I don't believe a word you say because I'm not predisposed to believe it, well DUH, genius. I correctly place the burden of proof upon YOU. There is no burden whatsoever on ME except to weigh your words against the evidence. And you have none.

 

It's also sad that you view facts as a "love language." You are committing a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion" and I'm here to call you on it. You have no facts, and so you must rely upon emotions to make your point. That's where I know your faith isn't real. You see, facts don't give a turgid shit what your "love fucking language" is. Quasars don't care how you fucking FEEL about them. Microbes won't stop to ask how you fucking FEEL about their mutations. My disbelief in the Bible is not due to feelings, but to facts. It makes historical claims that are absolutely not true. Its hero, Jesus, is very likely an amalgam of dozens of other Judean mystics running around trying to start messianic revolutions at that time, and his story is baldly plagiarized from the "miracle stories" of other gods and heroes of his era. The Bible itself makes promises that either cannot be verified or that very much can be disproven. Its followers are indisputably the most dishonest, most immoral people in the United States today as shown by crime rates and health statistics for predominantly Christian regions. Morally, its mandates are hideous, and logically, one must do contortions to make sense out of its demands. It is far, far simpler to go with the explanation that God doesn't actually exist as he is described in the Bible, that the Bible itself is no more authoritative than any other ancient book of mythology, and that even if he were real, he's certainly not worthy of anything more than contempt and rebellion. Hell, if you could even show that Jesus even existed by using contemporary writings and documentation, I'd at least give you that. But there exist no verified writings or records that even confirm his existence--outside of the Scriptures and biased, decades-after-the-fact writings. You believe in smoke and mist, shadows and lies, and you're upset that I'm not as gullible as you are? That's a hoot.

 

One of these days you'll actually read your holy book and not just cherry-pick the bits you like, and you'll see what every one of the ex-Christians here saw. "Love language?" Did your pastor try that one out on his congregation and you liked it, or did you come up with something that laughably oblivious all by yourself? Facts aren't a "love language." A "love language" is what you claim when you have no proof whatsoever, and no argument to stand on.

 

A couple of things come to mind. If I had proof, would faith a requirement? Also, you are asserting that emotions are not factual? Have you ever considered that the very facts you rest your ass essment on work largely in type the very way spirituality does? ........even Jesus used parables.

 

So you are making your claim based on a lack of documentation? Modern man doesn't even have the facts and documentation that support adequate understanding of emotions/love, but somehow past civiliztions were to document the evolution of love? (Although it seems they did in the work of writing the Bible itself) Isn't that somewhat obvious, the movement towards morality, yet you lack documentation???? Oh yes, in the particular language that would make it viable to you. Oops, my bad.

 

To my love languages.....would you feel acceptance of the perspective if I provide the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, i.e. FACTUAL DOCUMENTATION. that you need? Of course you would, you have admitted such.

 

So would the Bible be like the Merch Index in this regard, but for spirituality.

 

It's rather short-sighted, don't you think, to make an assessment without corellation? So, don't get angry, just give me the mechanism. I think they are largely the same if you use your kidneys and think about it.

[Akheia]

I'm saying, you ridiculous fairy-dust-peddler, that your holy book makes very specific claims about things that happened, claims about what prayer DOES (not "can do," not "might do if God's in the mood and enough people poll him in a spiritual popularity contest," not "what is possible but only if you really, truly believe with all your heart, if no skeptics are anywhere in the same hemisphere as the praying person, and not a single recording device is around," but DOES), and claims about the life of a historical person called Jesus and what he did during his lifetime and said people should do to get to the heaven he describes. Not a single one of those things is a fact. It was all made-up by people with a vested interest in convincing others to drink the same Kool-Aid. Are you saying that you find it okay to pin your entire hopes for an afterlife upon a book that has been categorically disproven at every turn? You're totally fine with accepting its ridiculous, immoral claims about the afterlife and about how humans should relate to each other based upon a text that has been shown to be wrong every time someone reputable has examined it?

 

Don't try to sneak around with made-up definitions and bizarrely-worded loopholes. Either Jesus existed and was a Judean celebrity doing well-publicized miracles, or not a single contemporary document mentions him or his many miracles. Either he rose from the dead, or it's a story knitted laboriously together years after his death. Either God made the world in 7 days, or he didn't. Either his people wandered in the desert, or they never did. Either the sun stopped for days, or it didn't. There's not really a halfway point there. If the book's not factual, then it's myth. And if it's myth, then I feel no need to be constrained by its peculiar misogyny and bloodthirstiness. There are way way better myths out there I can base my morality and worldview on, thank you.

 

I'm not okay with that Bible's track record of truth. If you think it's factual or truthful, fine, just don't go thinking that your gullibility is a virtuous thing that all humans everywhere should emulate. We'd never have gotten out of the Bronze Age that way!

[mymistake]

If I proposed a logical argument with respect to spirituality, I doubt it would change much. I would ask how one would describe spirituality in "proof" terms. Science? Yet, decisions are made on scientific proof.

 

In short, I don't see logic in ruling out something we acknowledge but can't measure.

 

That leaves you in a world where ghosts, voodoo, reincarnation, bigfoot, alien abductions, chupacabra, and chi are all real. How do you pick which ideas are real and which are not?

[♦ ficino ♦]

I could ask you the same thing. Here's the problem: I'm very open to new opinions and ideas. I've changed my mind before on subjects ranging from vaccinations to homeopathy to the death penalty to vegetarianism to free-market capitalism to the health-care industry. I'm not ashamed to listen and learn. If you had something that was actually comprehensible, then I can assure you I'd give you the greatest credence. If you had actual evidence that your holy book were true, or that your God is what you claim, or that he even exists, I'd find the matter of more than passing interest. The stakes you claim for disbelief are such that no responsible person could do otherwise.

 

But it's so much easier to believe that the person listening "just doesn't want" what you're selling than to notice flaws in the message itself. If you're telling me that I don't believe a word you say because I'm not predisposed to believe it, well DUH, genius. I correctly place the burden of proof upon YOU. There is no burden whatsoever on ME except to weigh your words against the evidence. And you have none.

 

It's also sad that you view facts as a "love language." You are committing a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion" and I'm here to call you on it. You have no facts, and so you must rely upon emotions to make your point. That's where I know your faith isn't real. You see, facts don't give a turgid shit what your "love fucking language" is. Quasars don't care how you fucking FEEL about them. Microbes won't stop to ask how you fucking FEEL about their mutations. My disbelief in the Bible is not due to feelings, but to facts. It makes historical claims that are absolutely not true. Its hero, Jesus, is very likely an amalgam of dozens of other Judean mystics running around trying to start messianic revolutions at that time, and his story is baldly plagiarized from the "miracle stories" of other gods and heroes of his era. The Bible itself makes promises that either cannot be verified or that very much can be disproven. Its followers are indisputably the most dishonest, most immoral people in the United States today as shown by crime rates and health statistics for predominantly Christian regions. Morally, its mandates are hideous, and logically, one must do contortions to make sense out of its demands. It is far, far simpler to go with the explanation that God doesn't actually exist as he is described in the Bible, that the Bible itself is no more authoritative than any other ancient book of mythology, and that even if he were real, he's certainly not worthy of anything more than contempt and rebellion. Hell, if you could even show that Jesus even existed by using contemporary writings and documentation, I'd at least give you that. But there exist no verified writings or records that even confirm his existence--outside of the Scriptures and biased, decades-after-the-fact writings. You believe in smoke and mist, shadows and lies, and you're upset that I'm not as gullible as you are? That's a hoot.

 

One of these days you'll actually read your holy book and not just cherry-pick the bits you like, and you'll see what every one of the ex-Christians here saw. "Love language?" Did your pastor try that one out on his congregation and you liked it, or did you come up with something that laughably oblivious all by yourself? Facts aren't a "love language." A "love language" is what you claim when you have no proof whatsoever, and no argument to stand on.

 

A couple of things come to mind. If I had proof, would faith a requirement? Also, you are asserting that emotions are not factual? Have you ever considered that the very facts you rest your ass essment on work largely in type the very way spirituality does? ........even Jesus used parables.

 

So you are making your claim based on a lack of documentation? Modern man doesn't even have the facts and documentation that support adequate understanding of emotions/love, but somehow past civiliztions were to document the evolution of love? (Although it seems they did in the work of writing the Bible itself) Isn't that somewhat obvious, the movement towards morality, yet you lack documentation???? Oh yes, in the particular language that would make it viable to you. Oops, my bad.

 

To my love languages.....would you feel acceptance of the perspective if I provide the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, i.e. FACTUAL DOCUMENTATION. that you need? Of course you would, you have admitted such.

 

So would the Bible be like the Merch Index in this regard, but for spirituality.

 

It's rather short-sighted, don't you think, to make an assessment without corellation? So, don't get angry, just give me the mechanism. I think they are largely the same if you use your kidneys and think about it.

 

end3, this is unintelligible. Akheia, whoa... preach it, sister!

[mymistake]

A couple of things come to mind. If I had proof, would faith a requirement? Also, you are asserting that emotions are not factual?

 

Emotions and facts are completely different things. It can be a fact that a person experience an emotion. However the emotion somebody experiences doesn't have to reflect fact.

 

Have you ever considered that the very facts you rest your ass essment on work largely in type the very way spirituality does?

 

Proof please. I've not seen evidence that spirituality works at all unless you mean the way a scam works.

 

........even Jesus used parables. So you are making your claim based on a lack of documentation? Modern man doesn't even have the facts and documentation that support adequate understanding of emotions/love, but somehow past civiliztions were to document the evolution of love?

 

Civilizations have only been around for thousands of years. We have only known about evolution for hundreds of years. That isn't enough time to document the evolution of love. Love probably goes back millions of years to when our ancestors were not even human. Lots of mammals seem to exhibit the same behavior.

 

(Although it seems they did in the work of writing the Bible itself) Isn't that somewhat obvious, the movement towards morality, yet you lack documentation???? Oh yes, in the particular language that would make it viable to you. Oops, my bad. To my love languages.....would you feel acceptance of the perspective if I provide the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, i.e. FACTUAL DOCUMENTATION. that you need? Of course you would, you have admitted such. So would the Bible be like the Merch Index in this regard, but for spirituality. It's rather short-sighted, don't you think, to make an assessment without corellation? So, don't get angry, just give me the mechanism. I think they are largely the same if you use your kidneys and think about it.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. However human morality has evolved considerably since the time the Bible was written. We can document that. Example: only recently in the last few hundred years did we discover that it is wrong to own humans or to rape slaves/wives. The humans who wrote the Bible didn't know that and their ignorance is apparent.

[Guest end3]

I'm saying, you ridiculous fairy-dust-peddler, that your holy book makes very specific claims about things that happened, claims about what prayer DOES (not "can do," not "might do if God's in the mood and enough people poll him in a spiritual popularity contest," not "what is possible but only if you really, truly believe with all your heart, if no skeptics are anywhere in the same hemisphere as the praying person, and not a single recording device is around," but DOES), and claims about the life of a historical person called Jesus and what he did during his lifetime and said people should do to get to the heaven he describes. Not a single one of those things is a fact. It was all made-up by people with a vested interest in convincing others to drink the same Kool-Aid. Are you saying that you find it okay to pin your entire hopes for an afterlife upon a book that has been categorically disproven at every turn? You're totally fine with accepting its ridiculous, immoral claims about the afterlife and about how humans should relate to each other based upon a text that has been shown to be wrong every time someone reputable has examined it?

 

Don't try to sneak around with made-up definitions and bizarrely-worded loopholes. Either Jesus existed and was a Judean celebrity doing well-publicized miracles, or not a single contemporary document mentions him or his many miracles. Either he rose from the dead, or it's a story knitted laboriously together years after his death. Either God made the world in 7 days, or he didn't. Either his people wandered in the desert, or they never did. Either the sun stopped for days, or it didn't. There's not really a halfway point there. If the book's not factual, then it's myth. And if it's myth, then I feel no need to be constrained by its peculiar misogyny and bloodthirstiness. There are way way better myths out there I can base my morality and worldview on, thank you.

 

I'm not okay with that Bible's track record of truth. If you think it's factual or truthful, fine, just don't go thinking that your gullibility is a virtuous thing that all humans everywhere should emulate. We'd never have gotten out of the Bronze Age that way!

 

By your account, emotions shouldn't exist. Quasars, microbes, etc. don't give a shit as I recall. But it's fairy dust for me and fact for you. I don't have to make up a definition for hypocritical.

 

Made up defintions and bizarrely worded? I just gave you exactly what you asked for, not "parroting" or the like, and you still won't consider another perspective but the one YOU have to have.

[Akheia]

End, what do you think about the Bible's historical and scientific claims not being true and about Jesus' very existence being in doubt?

 

You haven't given me jack shit, End. I asked you simple questions and you squirmed away from them. So answer this: the Bible's claims have been repeatedly shown to be untrue. Why, then, do you give it credence in such lofty matters as the fate of your soul when you cannot trust it even in a simple matter like whether or not your very savior was actually a real person?

[mymistake]

I'm saying, you ridiculous fairy-dust-peddler, that your holy book makes very specific claims about things that happened, claims about what prayer DOES (not "can do," not "might do if God's in the mood and enough people poll him in a spiritual popularity contest," not "what is possible but only if you really, truly believe with all your heart, if no skeptics are anywhere in the same hemisphere as the praying person, and not a single recording device is around," but DOES), and claims about the life of a historical person called Jesus and what he did during his lifetime and said people should do to get to the heaven he describes. Not a single one of those things is a fact. It was all made-up by people with a vested interest in convincing others to drink the same Kool-Aid. Are you saying that you find it okay to pin your entire hopes for an afterlife upon a book that has been categorically disproven at every turn? You're totally fine with accepting its ridiculous, immoral claims about the afterlife and about how humans should relate to each other based upon a text that has been shown to be wrong every time someone reputable has examined it?

 

Don't try to sneak around with made-up definitions and bizarrely-worded loopholes. Either Jesus existed and was a Judean celebrity doing well-publicized miracles, or not a single contemporary document mentions him or his many miracles. Either he rose from the dead, or it's a story knitted laboriously together years after his death. Either God made the world in 7 days, or he didn't. Either his people wandered in the desert, or they never did. Either the sun stopped for days, or it didn't. There's not really a halfway point there. If the book's not factual, then it's myth. And if it's myth, then I feel no need to be constrained by its peculiar misogyny and bloodthirstiness. There are way way better myths out there I can base my morality and worldview on, thank you.

 

I'm not okay with that Bible's track record of truth. If you think it's factual or truthful, fine, just don't go thinking that your gullibility is a virtuous thing that all humans everywhere should emulate. We'd never have gotten out of the Bronze Age that way!

 

By your account, emotions shouldn't exist.

 

What are you talking about? I see nothing in any of Akheia's posts that indicates emotions shouldn't exist.

 

Quasars, microbes, etc. don't give a shit as I recall.

 

Neither has a human brain so neither is relevant to how a human brain operates.

 

But it's fairy dust for me and fact for you. I don't have to make up a definition for hypocritical.

 

Not seeing how anything Akheia wrote is hypocritical. Clarify please.

 

Made up defintions and bizarrely worded? I just gave you exactly what you asked for, not "parroting" or the like, and you still won't consider another perspective but the one YOU have to have.

 

I consider other perspectives. But I'm not going to adopt one if it doesn't have supporting objective evidence. How is the supporting evidence regarding these other perspectives?

[Spectrox]

To DestinyJesus3000 - I wasn't missing you at all. So far you've offered nothing new. At least nothing that hasn't been refuted a thousand times already.

 

Why would you make a big commitment to a website forum when you're planning for your wedding? Very strange behaviour.

 

What's with the pompous username? And why 3000?

[Guest end3]

End, what do you think about the Bible's historical and scientific claims not being true and about Jesus' very existence being in doubt?

 

You haven't given me jack shit, End. I asked you simple questions and you squirmed away from them. So answer this: the Bible's claims have been repeatedly shown to be untrue. Why, then, do you give it credence in such lofty matters as the fate of your soul when you cannot trust it even in a simple matter like whether or not your very savior was actually a real person?

 

Much like you ignoring my questions regarding emotions. I just have mild contempt for people that profess an all or nothing factual explanation but can't explain reality in a factual manner yet have the audacity to deem the explanation truth. At least I call mine faith.

[Akheia]

Yes, yes. Most of us were Christians once, so we understand very well how to squirm out of a direct question. But you shan't get away so easily. Welcome to yet another logical fallacy--you're redirecting the line of conversation, and it won't work now any more than your previous appeals to emotion did. So. To make it super-simple for you, here is the main question:

 

How do you explain the Bible's lack of evidence for (and the evidence completely condemning) its particular claims, including and especially the claim that a savior named Jesus came to Earth, performed oodles of miracles, and was crucified and rose from the dead, proving his resurrection to hundreds of witnesses?

 

Bonus corollary question: If there was never a Jesus, much less a resurrection, then why on earth would anybody take seriously anything else the Bible says?

[mymistake]

End, what do you think about the Bible's historical and scientific claims not being true and about Jesus' very existence being in doubt?

 

You haven't given me jack shit, End. I asked you simple questions and you squirmed away from them. So answer this: the Bible's claims have been repeatedly shown to be untrue. Why, then, do you give it credence in such lofty matters as the fate of your soul when you cannot trust it even in a simple matter like whether or not your very savior was actually a real person?

 

Much like you ignoring my questions regarding emotions.

 

Well I can think of one person who was willing to discuss what you asked regarding emotions. The ball is in your court. You will have to clarify the part of your questions I didn't understand.

 

I just have mild contempt for people that profess an all or nothing factual explanation but can't explain reality in a factual manner yet have the audacity to deem the explanation truth. At least I call mine faith.

 

Pardon? What is an "explanation truth"? If I'm reading it right the set of those who "profess an all or nothing factual explanation but can't explain reality in a factual manner" describes everybody who ever lived. Unless you mean "parts of reality". Maybe you should tighten up the meaning of "all or nothing factual explanation". Maybe you mean something else by it.

[Guest end3]

Yes, yes. Most of us were Christians once, so we understand very well how to squirm out of a direct question. But you shan't get away so easily. Welcome to yet another logical fallacy--you're redirecting the line of conversation, and it won't work now any more than your previous appeals to emotion did. So. To make it super-simple for you, here is the main question:

 

How do you explain the Bible's lack of evidence for (and the evidence completely condemning) its particular claims, including and especially the claim that a savior named Jesus came to Earth, performed oodles of miracles, and was crucified and rose from the dead, proving his resurrection to hundreds of witnesses?

 

Bonus corollary question: If there was never a Jesus, much less a resurrection, then why on earth would anybody take seriously anything else the Bible says?

 

Ma'am, I am reasonably sure your motivation for a reponse is not good. I am sure whatever I said would be deemed "sad"......which pretty much gives me a clue how much you gathered from Christianity. Thanks but no thanks.

[Akheia]

So is that a "NO, I don't wanna answer your question"?

 

Thanks for clarifying!

[mymistake]

So is that a "NO, I don't wanna answer your question"?

 

Thanks for clarifying!

 

If he is so sure that our motives are so bad and whatever he said would be a fallacy then why is he even here? Well another Christian has run from the field. How can they still see themselves victorious when all they do is retreat?

[Spectrox]

So DestinyJesus, tell us your best arguments and we'll point out the logical fallacies.

[agnosticator]

30 days in the clink to weigh my attitude. Not sure it helped...lol.

 

Colonel Klink: "Schultz, into the cooler they go. Throw away the key. "

 

"Don't we get a trial or anything?"

 

Colonel Klink: "This is Germany. Although I do appreciate your sense of humor."

 

Sorry, End. This is EX-C, and we don't tolerate insubordination! At least they didn't throw away the key! It might have helped if you said what Sergeant Schultz would've said: " I see nothing, and I know nothing! I wasn't even there!"

[agnosticator]

Made up defintions and bizarrely worded?

 

She has yet to learn End Speak. Give her a few more threads, End.

[midniterider]

Welcome, Riddick! Love the username.

 

As to DJ... I feel so embarrassed for him. And a touch sad that he's spending apparently so much time writing novels' worth of logical fallacies to support his completely subjective viewpoints. It's so unnecessary. Since all he's really done so far is parrot what other apologists have written and said--and piss-poorly at that--I'd rather he just tell one of THEM to come over here and quit playing middleman. I'd love to have a thread from his pastor; I've been wanting to talk to one for a while now about how so many seminaries teach Biblical criticism and how that never seems to carry over into actual preaching to the actual flocks. All DJ and the other Christians floating around here are doing is trying to be the Magic Christians who'll say things JUSSSSST RIGHT and make us all wake up and re-convert. Strange how in all the time lurking and posting I've done here I don't remember a Christian pastor posting. I've seen a couple of ex-pastors post. But maybe I missed the current-pastors. Or maybe they know something these True Believers just don't.

 

I think most pastors/preacher types think it a dead horse so to speak. If I proposed a logical argument with respect to spirituality, I doubt it would change much. I would ask how one would describe spirituality in "proof" terms. Science? Yet, decisions are made on scientific proof.

 

In short, I don't see logic in ruling out something we acknowledge but can't measure.

 

If a pastor could make money here by posting, he would be here posting.

[riddick]

Sorry to go off topic, but just wanted to say thanks for the welcome, i've been a lurker here for a while and enjoyed reading everyones posts and wanted to start getting involved.

 

Back on topic.

 

But i still have friends who are christian, and Aaron reminds me of them, he's/they're too used to talking to other christians, so when he talks, he's used to quoting scripture, and hearing "amen", "god is great", bla bla bla, but when he quotes scripture to most of us here, he might as well be quoting a doctor seuss book and try to pass it off as fact.

 

Maybe try to take this into account when you reply Aaron.

 

Riddick,

[Guest end3]

Yes, yes. Most of us were Christians once, so we understand very well how to squirm out of a direct question. But you shan't get away so easily. Welcome to yet another logical fallacy--you're redirecting the line of conversation, and it won't work now any more than your previous appeals to emotion did. So. To make it super-simple for you, here is the main question:

 

How do you explain the Bible's lack of evidence for (and the evidence completely condemning) its particular claims, including and especially the claim that a savior named Jesus came to Earth, performed oodles of miracles, and was crucified and rose from the dead, proving his resurrection to hundreds of witnesses?

 

Bonus corollary question: If there was never a Jesus, much less a resurrection, then why on earth would anybody take seriously anything else the Bible says?

 

I tell you the my truth A.....I think some of the stories are mythic and some literal. I guess the final answer in Christianity is, do you believe Jesus is who he says he is. I wasn't there. Of course I have my doubts about the miracles, but still have faith because I believe the entire story is too complex for man to have written...along with personal stuff. Also, as I stated earlier, I believe nature behaves in many ways as it alludes to in the Bible. I gather you don't favor the literal nor mythic.

 

Again, I think the way you are viewing it may disallow the story. I don't want to close myself to the option that I may see a story in a "new light" at some point. Will be glad to give you an End3's perspecitive on a particular if you so desire.