Does Reading The Bible Get You Into Heaven

[ironhorse]

 

 

If someone discovered "Jesus's" remains/bones, how would they be able to prove it was his?

 

I'm an agnostic, so I'm not coming at this from a Christian defensive perspective. But I'm sure that would be the main rebuttal argument from the Christian side of things - how would we actually be able to prove/know that they're Jesus's bones, and not another individual being passed off as him?

 

After all, it's not like Jesus is someone walking around right now who we could get a DNA sample from to compare the remains to.

 

Good question, Lyra.

 

But the issue of proof is irrelevant to Ironhorse if he really meant that... nothing ...would cause him to give up his Christian faith.

 

In his reply to me he wrote about the discovery of Jesus' bones and asked, "What if this actually happened?"

 

His response to the question was that he would have to give up his Christian faith.

 

But If he really meant...nothing ...then even the discovery of Jesus' bones SHOULD NOT cause him to give up his Christian faith.

 

Nothing means nothing.

.

.

.

So, he's contradicted himself.

 

 

It's very odd to me that someone who claims "nothing" would make him change his mind on his faith, would then give up said faith due to bones being found  that were claimed to be Jesus's. I mean, if I were a devout Christian, the "how do you know they're really his bones" thing would be the first defense I would go to. 

 

It's like the faith is very stubborn yet also very fickle at the same time?

 

I mean no insult or disrespect to Ironhorse in any way. It just seems like such a contradiction. 

 

 

 

I can see why some might assume this is a contradiction from my statement that “nothing” would cause me to cast away my faith.

BAA correctly clarified by pointing out:

In his reply to me he wrote about the discovery of Jesus' bones and asked, "What if this actually happened?"

That was how I was answering the question, pretending, if you will, that the bones of Jesus were actually found.

 

I don’t think is ever going to happen.

So my answer still remains “nothing” in the real world.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

If someone discovered "Jesus's" remains/bones, how would they be able to prove it was his?

 

I'm an agnostic, so I'm not coming at this from a Christian defensive perspective. But I'm sure that would be the main rebuttal argument from the Christian side of things - how would we actually be able to prove/know that they're Jesus's bones, and not another individual being passed off as him?

 

After all, it's not like Jesus is someone walking around right now who we could get a DNA sample from to compare the remains to.

 

Good question, Lyra.

 

But the issue of proof is irrelevant to Ironhorse if he really meant that... nothing ...would cause him to give up his Christian faith.

 

In his reply to me he wrote about the discovery of Jesus' bones and asked, "What if this actually happened?"

 

His response to the question was that he would have to give up his Christian faith.

 

But If he really meant...nothing ...then even the discovery of Jesus' bones SHOULD NOT cause him to give up his Christian faith.

 

Nothing means nothing.

.

.

.

So, he's contradicted himself.

 

 

It's very odd to me that someone who claims "nothing" would make him change his mind on his faith, would then give up said faith due to bones being found  that were claimed to be Jesus's. I mean, if I were a devout Christian, the "how do you know they're really his bones" thing would be the first defense I would go to. 

 

It's like the faith is very stubborn yet also very fickle at the same time?

 

I mean no insult or disrespect to Ironhorse in any way. It just seems like such a contradiction. 

 

 

 

I can see why some might assume this is a contradiction from my statement that “nothing” would cause me to cast away my faith.

BAA correctly clarified by pointing out:

In his reply to me he wrote about the discovery of Jesus' bones and asked, "What if this actually happened?"

That was how I was answering the question, pretending, if you will, that the bones of Jesus were actually found.

 

I don’t think is ever going to happen.

So my answer still remains “nothing” in the real world.

 

 

You've just backpedaled on your original, one-word reply to the AntiCrash's question, Ironhorse.

 

You've done so by adding a condition to 'nothing'.

 

Now you're saying 'nothing' in the real world.

 

Your original, one-word reply had no conditions attached to it.  

.

.

.

So you're still contradicting yourself.

[Lyra]

Ok. But if someone claimed to have discovered Jesus's bones, the burden of proof would then be on them to prove that the bones did indeed belong to Jesus and not some random dude.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok. But if someone claimed to have discovered Jesus's bones, the burden of proof would then be on them to prove that the bones did indeed belong to Jesus and not some random dude.

 

Lyra,

 

Ironhorse's one-word reply ( "nothing" ) carried no reference to a burden of proof.

 

According to his one-word reply, even if the burden of proof was satisfied, he would still not give up his Christian faith.

 

Nothing means nothing.

.

.

.

So, he's still stuck in a contradiction between how he replied to the AntiCrash's question and what he said about denouncing his Christian faith as being false. (Post # 20, in this thread.)

 

His two posts totally contradict each other.

 

He cannot do both things.

 

He cannot renounce his faith and still hold to it.

[Lyra]

I get that part.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

If someone discovered "Jesus's" remains/bones, how would they be able to prove it was his?

 

I'm an agnostic, so I'm not coming at this from a Christian defensive perspective. But I'm sure that would be the main rebuttal argument from the Christian side of things - how would we actually be able to prove/know that they're Jesus's bones, and not another individual being passed off as him?

 

After all, it's not like Jesus is someone walking around right now who we could get a DNA sample from to compare the remains to.

 

Good question, Lyra.

 

But the issue of proof is irrelevant to Ironhorse if he really meant that... nothing ...would cause him to give up his Christian faith.

 

In his reply to me he wrote about the discovery of Jesus' bones and asked, "What if this actually happened?"

 

His response to the question was that he would have to give up his Christian faith.

 

But If he really meant...nothing ...then even the discovery of Jesus' bones SHOULD NOT cause him to give up his Christian faith.

 

Nothing means nothing.

.

.

.

So, he's contradicted himself.

 

 

It's very odd to me that someone who claims "nothing" would make him change his mind on his faith, would then give up said faith due to bones being found  that were claimed to be Jesus's. I mean, if I were a devout Christian, the "how do you know they're really his bones" thing would be the first defense I would go to. 

 

It's like the faith is very stubborn yet also very fickle at the same time?

 

I mean no insult or disrespect to Ironhorse in any way. It just seems like such a contradiction. 

 

 

 

I can see why some might assume this is a contradiction from my statement that “nothing” would cause me to cast away my faith.

BAA correctly clarified by pointing out:

In his reply to me he wrote about the discovery of Jesus' bones and asked, "What if this actually happened?"

That was how I was answering the question, pretending, if you will, that the bones of Jesus were actually found.

 

I don’t think is ever going to happen.

So my answer still remains “nothing” in the real world.

 

 

You've just backpedaled on your original, one-word reply to the AntiCrash's question, Ironhorse.

 

You've done so by adding a condition to 'nothing'.

 

Now you're saying 'nothing' in the real world.

 

Your original, one-word reply had no conditions attached to it.  

.

.

.

So you're still contradicting yourself.

 

 

Would you please resolve the above contradiction, Ironhorse.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s.

 

If you don't understand how you are contradicting yourself, post # 29 explains it.

[mwc]

     Maybe.  Whatever causes you to believe.  If that's reading the bible then I guess so.  If that's a poorly animated cartoon then I guess that.  Or some guy screaming at you from atop a milk carton.  Maybe it's a giant ark building.  Or it's that xian chick that lets you do anal on her that gets your belief going and is your ticket to heaven.

 

          mwc

[Jedah]

Seriously reading the bible and honestly examining it causes a person to become an atheist, so no.