As Arranged, Trump Has Been Acquitted

[Spartan]

Then it should be super easy to present this knock-your-socks-off evidence right here and now. Like even, just the best, most compelling piece of evidence.
And yet you still haven't ....

Also, if this book is so compelling, as you say, why is it not bigger news? The book was written 16 years ago. Why isn't this world-shattering news that everybody knows about?
Because it's not.

Hey - whatever I throw out there you guys will just kick it to the curb anyway, right?

When have you dedicated Christ-deniers ever warmed up to Biblical evidence about Jesus?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey - whatever I throw out there you guys will just kick it to the curb anyway, right?

When have you dedicated Christ-deniers ever warmed up to Biblical evidence about Jesus?

You haven't thrown anything at us except for hawking a book.

But no, you are wrong. I will honestly consider any evidence put before me. I can be convinced of anything, given sufficient reason and evidence to believe the thing. That's how I operate.
The problem is, you refuse to provide any evidence for your claims at all, and instead think that it's on others to prove you wrong. The problem is that the burden of proof doesn't work that way.

Remember, I used to believe in God and have since moved away from it. So my mind can be changed, and has changed.
Can you say the same for yourself? Or are you trapped in blind faith?

The term "Biblical evidence" is an oxymoron, because the Bible is a compilation of claims, not evidence. The evidence must come from elsewhere.

 

[Spartan]

The arguments I've seen for resurrection have all been rebutted and rejected, so I'm not interested in looking at them again.

That's a howler. Which argument against the resurrection of Jesus has ever been successful? Pick your best one and let's see that bad boy.

We've got another Christian in another thread making a similar impotent argument. He's claiming that abiogenesis is a flawed hypothesis because nobody has worked out a complete pathway from simplest chemicals to life. People participating in that thread are just as mystified about why he thinks that that is a rebuttal to abiogenesis.

You can't prove abiogenesis. Have you looked at the incredible complexity of a single cell? And you think that all magically came about in some swamp slime incident? That kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasy requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster. Oh ye of GREAT FAITH, lol.

On yet another thread, we have been discussing the damage that too much faith can cause to a person's ability to think clearly. We only see these kinds of impotent arguments like yours above from Christians trying to defend their wrong-headed beliefs. You provided a nice example when you were defending biblical slavery.

That's bs. I was explaining the different types of slavery found in the OT - VOLUNTARY servitude as a means of existence; God's judgment on evil men and nations; and slavery that was done (a sin) without God's permission. What's more, I put out there Jesus' proscription against slavery - Mark 12:31 - "The second (commandment) is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' No other commandment is greater than these." Apparently none of that registered in your noggins.

Secular humanists don't do anything like that because they don't have to. They rejected slavery.

Christians fought against slavery also. Or did you forget?

Secular humanism is one of the great scourges of mankind.

"The process of secularization, combined with moral relativism, when its done its work, will ultimately destroy a sense of shame in a culture. Secularization has a deadly effect when it is uninformed by a transcendent moral order" (i.e. God). - Ravi Zacharias

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's a howler. Which argument against the resurrection of Jesus has ever been successful? Pick your best one and let's see that bad boy.



You can't prove abiogenesis. Have you looked at the incredible complexity of a single cell? And you think that all magically came about in some swamp slime incident? That kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasy requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster. Oh ye of GREAT FAITH, lol.



That's bs. I was explaining the different types of slavery found in the OT - VOLUNTARY servitude as a means of existence; God's judgment on evil men and nations; and slavery that was done (a sin) without God's permission. What's more, I put out there Jesus' proscription against slavery - Mark 12:31 - "The second (commandment) is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' No other commandment is greater than these." Apparently none of that registered in your noggins.



Christians fought against slavery also. Or did you forget?

Secular humanism is one of the great scourges of mankind.

"The process of secularization, combined with moral relativism, when its done its work, will ultimately destroy a sense of shame in a culture. Secularization has a deadly effect when it is uninformed by a transcendent moral order" (i.e. God). - Ravi Zacharias

Ooops, you've confused "secular humanism" with "moral relativism" thus negating whatever point you were trying to make.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

And still, not one argument disproving the resurrection has ever been seen.

Oh I dunno. I could see how the billions of cases of people dying and staying dead without a single verifiable counterexample could be convincing to some people.

 

[Spartan]

Remember, I used to believe in God and have since moved away from it. So my mind can be changed, and has changed.
Can you say the same for yourself? Or are you trapped in blind faith?

There's no "blind faith" on my part. I have 40+ years of research into the Gospels and New Testament, plus two theology degrees. There's tons of evidence for the faith.

Josh McDowell, a former skeptic of Christianity was challenged to do his homework too. This was his finding:

"I took the challenge seriously. I spent months in research. I even dropped out of school for a time to study in the historically rich libraries of Europe. And I found evidence – evidence in abundance; evidence I could hardly believe with my own eyes. Finally I could come to only one conclusion: If I were to remain intellectually honest, I had to admit that the Old and New Testament documents were some of the most reliable writings in all of antiquity."

The term "Biblical evidence" is an oxymoron, because the Bible is a compilation of claims, not evidence. The evidence must come from elsewhere.

Nonsense. Simon Greenleaf was a Respected Harvard Law professor. His three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, is considered a classic of American jurisprudence and formed the basis for his study of the Gospels. He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, in which he emphatically stated: “...it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”

 

[Spartan]

Oh I dunno. I could see how the billions of cases of people dying and staying dead without a single verifiable counterexample could be convincing to some people.

There was a verifiable resurrection - Jesus. Complete with multiple eyewitness testimony.

 

[Spartan]

Ooops, you've confused "secular humanism" with "moral relativism" thus negating whatever point you were trying to make.

You secularists don't have any objective moral absolutes. It's all moral relativism on your part.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

There was a verifiable resurrection - Jesus. Complete with multiple eyewitness testimony.

Yes everyone here knows you believe that. Unfortunately just reading you reassert it every couple of posts does little to convince anyone else.

 

[Spartan]

Yes everyone here knows you believe that. Unfortunately just reading you reassert it every couple of posts does little to convince anyone else.

What serious study have you done on the Gospels? Just reading them superficially without digging into see if they're legitimate doesn't qualify. How much serious study have you done on it?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What serious study have you done on the Gospels? Just reading them superficially without digging into see if they're legitimate doesn't qualify. How much serious study have you done on it?

I've read the Bible front to back about a dozen times I'd say, over the years. I've dug fairly deeply into the scholarship too.

Yet even had I not spent a minute on it, I would still apply the same standard for evidence to the claims made therein as I do to everything else.

And as everything else, the fervent writings of fanatical believers would still fall well short lacking anything else.

So in short, I don't think it would make much difference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's no "blind faith" on my part. I have 40+ years of research into the Gospels and New Testament, plus two theology degrees. There's tons of evidence for the faith.

Josh McDowell, a former skeptic of Christianity was challenged to do his homework too. This was his finding:

"I took the challenge seriously. I spent months in research. I even dropped out of school for a time to study in the historically rich libraries of Europe. And I found evidence – evidence in abundance; evidence I could hardly believe with my own eyes. Finally I could come to only one conclusion: If I were to remain intellectually honest, I had to admit that the Old and New Testament documents were some of the most reliable writings in all of antiquity."

Nonsense. Simon Greenleaf was a Respected Harvard Law professor. His three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, is considered a classic of American jurisprudence and formed the basis for his study of the Gospels. He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, in which he emphatically stated: “...it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”

If there were tons of evidence, you wouldn't need faith at all. That's the thing.
Faith is the excuse people give for believing things when they don't have good evidence.

You think it's nonsense that the Bible contains claims but not evidence? I guess we're at an impasse then, if you think any of the claims in the Bible are evidence of anything.

Citing a couple of dude's personal opinions about the Bible doesn't really make your case without citing any actual evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You secularists don't have any objective moral absolutes. It's all moral relativism on your part.

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Spartan]

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.

Flush.

 

[Spartan]

If there were tons of evidence, you wouldn't need faith at all. That's the thing.

Evidence bolsters one's faith.

 

[Spartan]

I've read the Bible front to back about a dozen times I'd say, over the years. I've dug fairly deeply into the scholarship too.

Yet even had I not spent a minute on it, I would still apply the same standard for evidence to the claims made therein as I do to everything else.

And as everything else, the fervent writings of fanatical believers would still fall well short lacking anything else.

So in short, I don't think it would make much difference.

Then show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and provide your argument, with evidence, why it's false.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Flush.

That's what I was thinking about your post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence bolsters one's faith.

If you have good evidence, you don't need faith.

 

[Spartan]

If you have good evidence, you don't need faith.

Evidence bolsters faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence is too often over-rated. Sure, sure, it's useful.
But it's only so when used in a convincing argument.
I can find evidence for both creationism & evolution.
But only the latter has predictive value because of
superior explanatory power. So some evidence
becomes convincing, & other evidence unconvincing.

Remember...evidence alone does not an argument make.