|
Post by fixit on Apr 6, 2017 19:35:28 GMT -5
If Jesus is God to you, that's your call of course. Not my problem. However I maintain that F&W shouldn't be ridiculed for worshiping Jesus (without making him part of a convoluted man-made trinity). You have previously indicated you don't worship Jesus. Has this changed over the past couple of years? When did I indicate that?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 6, 2017 19:38:50 GMT -5
Exactly....we ask a logical question ie why do you worship Jesus if you don't regard Him to be God?....and we are apparently ridiculing. I'm not going to go through 37 pages of posts. If the cap fits - wear it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 20:28:44 GMT -5
Again, I am sorry you feel that way. For the record, I don't think I am superior to you in any way. On that point, I notice you use a lot of 'they' and 'we' language. That's interesting in itself. Also, I have apologised for my over-reaction (yes, I admit it). As for being 'treated this way'. Please. It is par for the course for Christians to be mocked, derided and excluded for their beliefs. In this country people are literally in danger of losing their jobs for not going along with the corporate line on SSM for example. Public calls are made daily by activists to sack people like an IBM executive who is also on the board of a philanthropic Christian organisation, because it is assumed that he 'must be' homophobic. Why? No evidence other than he is a Christian. So, yeah, tell me about being 'treated this way'. Your quote "until their sacred ox is gored, -then all hell brakes loose" can be applied to a number of secular commentators when their ethical or social pronouncements are politely challenged by Christians. And I'm over my outrage. Are you? I didn't have to get over any "outrage," alistair. I told you that.
I'm use to it. I was a bit surprised at you though, -because when you are posting to Christian believers, I had admired your consideration in dealing with them even if you didn't always agree.
That is why I used the 'they' and 'we' language.
As for your comment , 'Christians mocked, etc, Can you quote even one post where I have done that?
Many people on this board have accused me of this before but when it came to proof they couldn't prove it.here is one where you bring up faries and unicorns... Ram, there go again! You just don't seem to understand that it simple isn't anything to do with atheists "hating" idea of a god. Why should we care one way or another how people delude themselves? We simply don't see any evidence for the god that you say exists, -nor, for that matter, -any of the multitude of gods/goddesses that mankind has created throughout their history. How many do you believe exists? PS: Oh, my! -how could anyone hate those cute little fairies or unicorns! Please, Ram don't tell me that you "hate" them.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 6, 2017 21:01:28 GMT -5
Interesting. This post motivated me to do a search of "only" and "worship". Two verses say we are to worship the Lord God and SERVE only Him. I probably should have qualified my statement. The mantra "only God is to be worshiped" as support for trinitarian theology is what I consider naive. I don't believe for a moment that God would have a problem with folks worshiping his son Jesus Christ. According to the bible, the chance of seeing the Father is almost nil until after judgment day. But the chances of seeing Jesus' is possible. For some it'd be when he returns to the earth. Some will see him elsewise. So according to the bible, it was Jesus the Son ofman who is also God the Son who was worshipped in the Gospels. Soxit would be feasible to expect an opportunity to worship Jesus at some point. So as Jesus said, and again here is the reasonable understanding that if only God should be worshipped and served and the Father will not be available, so thus Seems Jesus was saying to Satan that Satan must worship him and serve him.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 6, 2017 21:17:27 GMT -5
No it's not Ross! The word Trinity isn't in the bible! I only believe what I read in so many words It's too hard to try and connect theological concepts together without clear instructions.
That's why we need the workers with their direct line to God. And friends like Fixit, with their direct line to the Watchtower Publishing and Tract Society or whatever it is.
I particularly like Calathumpians 1:1-4 "1. And lo, thou shalt go forth two by two, preaching the everlasting gospel of the meetings in the home and the preachers without a home. And this shall be a sign unto them, that thou shalt wear thy bun upon thy head, and thy bible bag shall be always by thy side.
2. Yea verily, thou shalt also go forth into the wilderness in the latter part of the year (dependeth) unto a deserted place to have thine annual meetings, called conventions in the ancient tongue, yea, even unto a third part of the year if thou art truly blessed!
3. Thou shalt also each week have thy mid-week study gathering around the scrolls, and on the first day of the week, meet in the inner room, also known as the withdrawing room or the lounge of fellowship, with a small group alone to show thy faithfulness unto the ancient precepts for a meeting of fellowship.
4. Then in the early part of the year (again, dependeth) shalt thou hie thyselves unto a special gathering in a special place, meeting together as the precepts teach thee. For anything else, thou shalt consult the apostolate of the testimony , aka the overseers who oversee thine every deed. Also shalt thou be Christians in a Conventional sense only, and by no other name shalt thou be named than the name currently applying in the register of the authorities in the place where thou residest. Thus sayeth the Prophet of the end times."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 6, 2017 22:35:20 GMT -5
I didn't have to get over any "outrage," alistair. I told you that.
I'm use to it. I was a bit surprised at you though, -because when you are posting to Christian believers, I had admired your consideration in dealing with them even if you didn't always agree.
That is why I used the 'they' and 'we' language.
As for your comment , 'Christians mocked, etc, Can you quote even one post where I have done that?
Many people on this board have accused me of this before but when it came to proof they couldn't prove it. here is one where you bring up faries and unicorns... Ram, there go again! You just don't seem to understand that it simple isn't anything to do with atheists "hating" idea of a god. Why should we care one way or another how people delude themselves? We simply don't see any evidence for the god that you say exists, -nor, for that matter, -any of the multitude of gods/goddesses that mankind has created throughout their history. How many do you believe exists? PS: Oh, my! -how could anyone hate those cute little fairies or unicorns! Please, Ram don't tell me that you "hate" them. Not having Ram's post at hand it is difficult to evaluate my response.
However, as I said in my reply, it isn't as if atheists "hate" a god!
It's simply that we SEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUPERNATURAL BEINGS.
That includes demons, angels, wee folk, -of any genre; -fairies or unicorns as well as a god/goddess or plural thereof!
Should I care whether other people delude themselves by believing in them?
No, -not as long as they don't hurt other people and don't infringe on my right to NOT believe in them..
Do you consider that "mocking" Christians?
Is it because I have compared their belief in the supernatural of their religion to other supernatural/paranormal beings?
If you consider it "mocking" that I feel that they are deluded, -how do you feel about people who believe in fairies ?
Would you believe those people to be deluded?
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 6, 2017 23:30:58 GMT -5
Gordon McNab once told a little girl that he believed there were professing fairies. Mainly because there was a family called Fairy (still is I think).
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Apr 6, 2017 23:48:31 GMT -5
Ross.BowdenAnyone who reads the above quotes and is unable to identify the inconsistent, confused and false claims, exemplifies the negative impact of religiosity. You.d have to be under the spell to miss them. First Ross claims he has significant evidence for Jesus death and resurrection. Then he admits he has no direct evidence that Jesus is living today despite countless references to the current personal relationship with Jesus. He adds he relies on faith to believe in the resurreçtion. Faith is that which believers apply when they want to believe in a concept which is not evidenced!Clearly the art of chérie-picking extends beyond biblical texts into the realm of historians. There are reputable historians who hold no vested interest in Christianity and who have revealed glaring errors and inconsistencies in the bible. As for dumbing down the delay in the recording of the resurrection of Jesus, and the fact that what would have been an outstanding miracle was overlooked for decades: only well-seasoned Christian apologists perform the necessary convoluted thought processes to justify these omissions. The claims of Jesus ressurection only began to gain momentum when manipulators saw the benefit in this story as one which would serve to control the gullible masses. There is only one reassuring comment in the above list of quotes, that being the reference to Michael Shermer. Ross.Bowden you obviously respect this man's opinion. Therefore if you can now understand your claim that ' Shermer admits the resurrection is not impossible ' is an inaccurate interpretation of MIchael Shermer's opinion of the resurrection and that he wrote the following in this article What would it take to believe in the resurrection of jesus then you may review your reasons for making truth claims which are too easily unravelled. . The principle of proportionality demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Of the approximately 100 billion people who have lived before us, all have died and none have returned, so the claim that one (or more) of them rose from the dead is about as extraordinary as one will ever find. Is the evidence commensurate with the conviction? According to philosopher Larry Shapiro of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in his 2016 book The Miracle Myth (Columbia University Press), “evidence for the resurrection is nowhere near as complete or convincing as the evidence on which historians rely to justify belief in other historical events such as the destruction of Pompeii.” Because miracles are far less probable than ordinary historical occurrences, such as volcanic eruptions, “the evidence necessary to justify beliefs about them must be many times better than that which would justify our beliefs in run-of-the-mill historical events. But it isn't Ross wrote Well no I cannot as there is None as you have yet again unsurprisingly shown. If there was evidence for these extraordinary claims including the one " When you have a god who creates the universe.." I too would believe. It all would have been so just so much easier to continue conforming to the Christian doctrine by suppressing inquiry. But the inevitable social and other losses which I experienced when dismissing with the Christian belief were compensated by the freeing of oneself from either the pretence, or the delusionary thought processes that belief entails. And in answer to your claim regarding the christian surgeons " When they operate they know that God is in control." If such surgeries are actually performed by god, Ross.Bowden, how is it that atheist medical practitioners/surgeons are able to heal people and operate successfully?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 7, 2017 0:02:08 GMT -5
No it's not Ross! The word Trinity isn't in the bible! I only believe what I read in so many words It's too hard to try and connect theological concepts together without clear instructions. That's why we need the workers with their direct line to God. And friends like Fixit, with their direct line to the Watchtower Publishing and Tract Society or whatever it is. I particularly like Calathumpians 1:1-4 "1. And lo, thou shalt go forth two by two, preaching the everlasting gospel of the meetings in the home and the preachers without a home. And this shall be a sign unto them, that thou shalt wear thy bun upon thy head, and thy bible bag shall be always by thy side. 2. Yea verily, thou shalt also go forth into the wilderness in the latter part of the year (dependeth) unto a deserted place to have thine annual meetings, called conventions in the ancient tongue, yea, even unto a third part of the year if thou art truly blessed! 3. Thou shalt also each week have thy mid-week study gathering around the scrolls, and on the first day of the week, meet in the inner room, also known as the withdrawing room or the lounge of fellowship, with a small group alone to show thy faithfulness unto the ancient precepts for a meeting of fellowship. 4. Then in the early part of the year (again, dependeth) shalt thou hie thyselves unto a special gathering in a special place, meeting together as the precepts teach thee. For anything else, thou shalt consult the apostolate of the testimony , aka the overseers who oversee thine every deed. Also shalt thou be Christians in a Conventional sense only, and by no other name shalt thou be named than the name currently applying in the register of the authorities in the place where thou residest. Thus sayeth the Prophet of the end times." Too funny.... Talking about old language, I've been amused by some on the FB sites recently struggling with the KJV with their kids. Apparently, a worker suggested NIV and then the friends reverted to the NKJV because they felt it was right. Old King James sure has a hold over some... It's nothing on the hold old Athanasius has on some...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 7, 2017 1:14:14 GMT -5
Ross.Bowden Anyone who reads the above quotes and is unable to identify the inconsistent, confused and false claims, exemplifies the negative impact of religiosity. You.d have to be under the spell to miss them. First Ross claims he has significant evidence for Jesus death and resurrection. Then he admits he has no direct evidence that Jesus is living today despite countless references to the current personal relationship with Jesus. He adds he relies on faith to believe in the resurreçtion. Faith is that which believers apply when they want to believe in a concept which is not evidenced!Clearly the art of chérie-picking extends beyond biblical texts into the realm of historians. There are reputable historians who hold no vested interest in Christianity and who have revealed glaring errors and inconsistencies in the bible. As for dumbing down the delay in the recording of the resurrection of Jesus, and the fact that what would have been an outstanding miracle was overlooked for decades: only well-seasoned Christian apologists perform the necessary convoluted thought processes to justify these omissions. The claims of Jesus ressurection only began to gain momentum when manipulators saw the benefit in this story as one which would serve to control the gullible masses. There is only one reassuring comment in the above list of quotes, that being the reference to Michael Shermer. Ross.Bowden you obviously respect this man's opinion. Therefore if you can now understand your claim that ' Shermer admits the resurrection is not impossible ' is an inaccurate interpretation of MIchael Shermer's opinion of the resurrection and that he wrote the following in this article What would it take to believe in the resurrection of jesus then you may review your reasons for making truth claims which are too easily unravelled. . The principle of proportionality demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Of the approximately 100 billion people who have lived before us, all have died and none have returned, so the claim that one (or more) of them rose from the dead is about as extraordinary as one will ever find. Is the evidence commensurate with the conviction? According to philosopher Larry Shapiro of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in his 2016 book The Miracle Myth (Columbia University Press), “evidence for the resurrection is nowhere near as complete or convincing as the evidence on which historians rely to justify belief in other historical events such as the destruction of Pompeii.” Because miracles are far less probable than ordinary historical occurrences, such as volcanic eruptions, “the evidence necessary to justify beliefs about them must be many times better than that which would justify our beliefs in run-of-the-mill historical events. But it isn't Ross wrote Well no I cannot as there is None as you have yet again unsurprisingly shown. If there was evidence for these extraordinary claims including the one " When you have a god who creates the universe.." I too would believe. It all would have been so just so much easier to continue conforming to the Christian doctrine by suppressing inquiry. But the inevitable social and other losses which I experienced when dismissing with the Christian belief were compensated by the freeing of oneself from either the pretence, or the delusionary thought processes that belief entails. And in answer to your claim regarding the christian surgeons " When they operate they know that God is in control." If such surgeries are actually performed by god, Ross.Bowden , how is it that atheist medical practitioners/surgeons are able to heal people and operate successfully? Man....you go on....and misquote in the process. I have indicated many times that there is evidence of the resurrection and I believe in that evidence. If you want to ignore the evidence, that's not my problem. God is in control of the atheist medical practitioners/surgeons as well. He's actually in control of you. He'll control when you die and what happens after death whether you like it or not. You should go and see the movie "The Case for Christ". It's well rated and documents an atheist journo who was given the task of researching the death and resurrection of Jesus. In doing so, he met with Jesus and turned to Him.
Well, good grief, Ross! What is one to do when you just keep on keeping on saying "there is evidence of the resurrection ," yet you never produce it.
So, all of we are supposed to go to see a movie some ex-atheist porduced and at the end we will see the light and clap our hands together, kneel and "praise the Lord!"
AND THAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? SHEESH..
Sometimes it seems that you take us all as still being wet behind the ears!
You seem to think that if you keep on keeping on, post after post, -saying you HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION, that eventually you convince YOURSELF that it is true!
Because that is what you really truly trying to do, Ross, -is to convince yourself!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 7, 2017 15:04:38 GMT -5
There isn't really any evidence that Jesus actually existed other than in the Bible. He was a God-man like many other God-men before him and shared many of the same mythologies as they did. Even Paul never saw him in the 'flesh' but in a vision and really didn't dwell on any of the more day to day tales of his existence. Knowing the earlier mythologies that many religions focused on makes it a good chance that the Christ was every bit as much of a myth as any of the others that were born in mangers, caves and other such places and being born to a human virgin after she was impregnated by a God is a story told many times over. Makes one question the existence of Jesus in the flesh and not just another of many God men that existed through out time. Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Apr 7, 2017 19:20:22 GMT -5
Ross.Bowden. It seems Lee Strobel is your man Ross. Every such spurious claim deserves to be verified if possible and the two links provided below examine Lee Strobel's telling of an atheist to Christian conversion. It is consistently obvious that too many people accept information on face value and fail to critique its reliability. "Science writer and physician Ben Goldacre once wrote that, “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.” Lee Strobel did not come to atheism through reason. He fell into atheism by accident, and decided to stay there because he had a taste for hedonism. His wife had recently converted to Christianity, and Strobel was a writer. What could he do? Maybe he could strengthen his marriage and discover a lucrative new career as a published evangelist." SkimmingReview of Lee Strobel's Case for Christ This comment is pertinent and surely prompts those of you who follow Ross' example of gullibility to apply a degree of suspicion when informed of the Strobel variety of chameleon tricks. "And last, let us acknowledge that evangelical Christianity is a lucrative business model. And one of the best ways to sell yourself in this business is to claim a dramatic salvation from a sinful life. The most profitable evangelists seem to have the most dramatic salvation"
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 8, 2017 6:41:01 GMT -5
I have read the link you posted Joanna.
This is unworthy of you.
It is a pure ad hominem attack with unfounded and unverified assumptions and aspersions as to why the writer 'thinks' Lee Strobel wrote his books and became a Christian.
It almost accuses him of not actually being a genuine Christian and does in fact strongly suggest that he was only in it for the money. Evidence of this? Nowhere to be found in fact.
This is a cheap take-down. There may be some substance in the fact that he was not an intellectual atheist. So what?
The salient fact is that he took the sceptical intellectual route to investigating the claims of Christianity and became personally convinced of their veracity. If someone disagrees with his conclusion, fair enough. But why attack the man? It smacks of desperation and has more than a whiff of plain character assassination. Something that leftists and atheists alike seem to easily resort to when things get a bit hot in the old debating room (present company excepted of course!).
I have read his books. Have you?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 8, 2017 10:44:08 GMT -5
Man....you go on....and misquote in the process. I have indicated many times that there is evidence of the resurrection and I believe in that evidence. If you want to ignore the evidence, that's not my problem. God is in control of the atheist medical practitioners/surgeons as well. He's actually in control of you. He'll control when you die and what happens after death whether you like it or not. You should go and see the movie "The Case for Christ". It's well rated and documents an atheist journo who was given the task of researching the death and resurrection of Jesus. In doing so, he met with Jesus and turned to Him.
Well, good grief, Ross! What is one to do when you just keep on keeping on saying "there is evidence of the resurrection ," yet you never produce it.
So, all of we are supposed to go to see a movie some ex-atheist porduced and at the end we will see the light and clap our hands together, kneel and "praise the Lord!"
AND THAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? SHEESH..
Sometimes it seems that you take us all as still being wet behind the ears!
You seem to think that if you keep on keeping on, post after post, -saying you HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION, that eventually you convince YOURSELF that it is true!
Because that is what you really truly trying to do, Ross, -is to convince yourself!Is it? Do you know this because you are God? Isnt that why your ability to consider evidence is impeccable and believers isnt? Do you believe beleivers should take drugs for their beliefs? Were you and your husband able to sleep in the same bed?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Apr 8, 2017 21:23:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 8, 2017 21:38:36 GMT -5
I have read it Joanna. Thanks.
As far as I can tell, being aware of most of the issues raised and the Christian counter-arguments, there is really nothing in there that constitutes an absolute refutation of the broad outlines of any of Strobel's arguments.
Every point made from a 'skeptic's perspective' in the second article has a reasonable counter-argument.
It is easy to be selective in an article such as this and selectively choose both the evidence presented and the commentary on that evidence.
OK, it can be said that people on both sides of any argument will do this (I have studied rhetoric), but at least let's be honest that that is the case!
The fact that he is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek supports a genuine conversion experience and commitment to his beliefs rather than merely an expedient choice made out of self-interest as suggested in the first article.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Apr 8, 2017 22:33:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 8, 2017 23:41:54 GMT -5
Well, good grief, Ross! What is one to do when you just keep on keeping on saying "there is evidence of the resurrection ," yet you never produce it.
So, all of we are supposed to go to see a movie some ex-atheist porduced and at the end we will see the light and clap our hands together, kneel and "praise the Lord!"
AND THAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? SHEESH..
Sometimes it seems that you take us all as still being wet behind the ears!
You seem to think that if you keep on keeping on, post after post, -saying you HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION, that eventually you convince YOURSELF that it is true!
Because that is what you really truly trying to do, Ross, -is to convince yourself! Is it? Do you know this because you are God? Isnt that why your ability to consider evidence is impeccable and believers isnt? Do you believe beleivers should take drugs for their beliefs? Were you and your husband able to sleep in the same bed? As usual, Lee, I find it difficult to understand what you are asking.
Do you mean that I believe that Ross is really trying to convince himself?
Then, Yes, I do believe that or I wouldn't have said it. Since, as I have said many, many times that I don't see any evidence for a god, therefore how could I believe that I am god?
As for my ability to consider evidence for something, I use the known laws of physics and I see those laws do not coincide with Ross's belief in a resurrection.
Your last question, Were you and your husband able to sleep in the same bed? That question defies any relevance to the subject at hand that I can think of.
Perhaps you can enlarge on the subject to where I can understand it's significance.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 9, 2017 0:23:17 GMT -5
You were putting ross down saying he was not only deluding himself but he wants to be deluded. You dont like it when people attack the basis you come by your nonbeliefs. Do they have to marrt you to get some kind of pass?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 9, 2017 2:17:27 GMT -5
You were putting ross down saying he was not only deluding himself but he wants to be deluded. You don't like it when people attack the basis you come by your non -beliefs. Do they have to marrt you to get some kind of pass? " marrt " meant and you haven't responded to why your question "Were you and your husband able to sleep in the same bed?" had any relevance to the topic at hand.
Yes, I suppose it could be considered a "putting Ross down," -but you see Ross kept continuously affirming in his posts that he had "evidence of the resurrection" yet, he could never produce the evidence.
It really hasn't anything to do with my beliefs.
If someone questions why I do or do not believe a certain thing, I try the best I can to tell them why.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 9, 2017 12:42:24 GMT -5
Why does evidence have to be empirical to be admissible or credible?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 9, 2017 14:33:37 GMT -5
Why does evidence have to be empirical to be admissible or credible? If we don't have guidelines for what is admissible or credible evidence then what's the point? We'd just be able to say anything and believe anything without a method to test it. If something cannot be proven by these guidelines then why should it be given credibility?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 9, 2017 20:26:59 GMT -5
Circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 9, 2017 21:16:02 GMT -5
Lee, you didn't answer what you meant by the word " marrt?" and you haven't responded to why your question "Were you and your husband able to sleep in the same bed?" had any relevance to the topic at hand.
Ross kept continuously affirming in his posts that he had "evidence of the resurrection" yet, he could never produce the evidence. As for of Ross's contention that there is evidence for the "resurrection" being true, how can you work that out from CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE definition
Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference
Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence. CIRCUMSTANCES
The particulars which accompany a fact.
The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us or afar off; they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or complicated; they are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence; where, for example, a woman was found dead in a room with every mark of having met with a violent death, the presence of another person at the scene of action was made manifest by the bloody mark of a left hand visible on her left arm.
These points ought to be carefully examined in order to form a correct opinion. The first question ought to be; is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be credited. If, for example, a man should swear that he saw the deceased shoot himself with his own pistol and upon an examination of the ball which killed him it should be found too large to enter into the pistol, the witness ought not to be credited. Or if one should swear that another had been guilty of an impossible crime.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 9, 2017 22:42:50 GMT -5
Yup. Lots of times what we consider to be the truth we do so short of direct evidence.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 9, 2017 23:22:31 GMT -5
Yup. Lots of times what we consider to be the truth we do so short of direct evidence. Yup. How many times must a question be asked and yet never get an answer?
Some times it is someone is just "blowing in the wind , my friend, just blowing in the wind!"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2017 12:23:06 GMT -5
Yup. Lots of times what we consider to be the truth we do so short of direct evidence. Nah I have never seen a theist yet that needed 'direct evidence' in order to believe in things that aren't possible in the physical world. After all isn't a strong faith in things unseen the very thing theists are expected to do?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 11, 2017 2:37:31 GMT -5
I have read it Joanna. Thanks. As far as I can tell, being aware of most of the issues raised and the Christian counter-arguments, there is really nothing in there that constitutes an absolute refutation of the broad outlines of any of Strobel's arguments. Every point made from a 'skeptic's perspective' in the second article has a reasonable counter-argument. It is easy to be selective in an article such as this and selectively choose both the evidence presented and the commentary on that evidence. OK, it can be said that people on both sides of any argument will do this (I have studied rhetoric), but at least let's be honest that that is the case! The fact that he is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek supports a genuine conversion experience and commitment to his beliefs rather than merely an expedient choice made out of self-interest as suggested in the first article. That is all. Alistair, Maybe you forgot but I am still waiting for those biblical scholars that you can trust since you don't trust some that I trust.
What reminded me just now was my look again at Pagels book (which is on my desk) and realized she had signed it, - I had forgotten that.
|
|