Your Vote, Your Reasons

[temujin]

I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world. I have accepted and confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

And I forever stand by that decision.

Praying for silly things equals believing in gods.

There is no worst offense to the Almighty.

You think you believe.

You don't.

[ElNono]

Trick as in non-obvious.

That doesn't make it invalid...

[timvp]

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all.

Bump.

TheMadHatter stumped by his own words again.

[Creepn]

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all..

Ask him for some proof about Beowulf too.

Anyway, some real time do entation of Jesus's adventures would be good. Some dude following him around writing everything he says. I mean that would make sense right? You would want to capture every single letter of a walking god.

[LnGrrrR]

I pray all the time for all sorts of things.

These are not necessarily listed in order of importance but to give you some examples...

I pray good dreams when I sleep, to bless my food, for traveling mercies, for wisdom in decision making, for comfort when I am sad, peace when I am afraid, for the safety of loved ones and myself, for favor at work and in life.
I have prayed for the Spurs to win.

Prayer to me is conversation with God. I pray all the time the same as I frequently call up my friends and trusted mentors to visit with them.

Hmm.. interesting. Thanks for the answer. If I may, a followup...

When you talk to him, is it a formal thing? Like, by the bedside, on your knees, hands in prayer? Or just a quiet mental note to him? And do you think you hear a 'reply' of sorts? Or is it just 'understood' that he's listening and so you feel he will guide your heart in some other way then a 'voice'?

[TheMadHatter]

My arguments with Stout have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and whether we can prove that or not. Clearly we cannot.

It has to do with the historicity of the accounts of Jesus as portrayed in the NT Gospels. I can't make it any clearer than this, if you don't understand the distinction that's not my problem.

[LnGrrrR]

That doesn't make it invalid...

ElNono, I never said it did. I think it's a valid answer, just not an obvious one, so I can somewhat see his point as well. I don't think he was saying it was a "wrong" answer per se, just not an 'expected' answer. (Most people assume that typing is done with the hands, even though it could have been done theoretically by some other means. It reminds me of the old bus driver joke and what color his/her eyes were.)

[LnGrrrR]

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all.

I don't know about him, but for me, it would probably take Jesus showing up on Time Square, him doing a few miracles, it being do ented by many sources... and then him repeating it every weekend or so for at least a month.

But then again, I'm a skeptic.

[CuckingFunt]

Apology not accepted.

Apology not needed, really. I don't think anyone had/has a problem with the fact that angel chose to share her opinion, yet it's the act of voicing that opinion for which she's issued the apology.

Everyone here is en led to have, and to voice, whatever opinion they want. Including those of us who think that opinion is frighteningly ignorant.

[timvp]

My arguments with Stout have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and whether we can prove that or not. Clearly we cannot.

It has to do with the historicity of the accounts of Jesus as portrayed in the NT Gospels. I can't make it any clearer than this, if you don't understand the distinction that's not my problem.

I'm not talking about your discussion with Extra Stout, I'm talking about you wanting "proof" throughout the thread. What type of proof are you looking for?

Seriously. Is there something you could see or read to make you think that the Christians may have it right?

[TheMadHatter]

I'm not talking about your discussion with Extra Stout, I'm talking about you wanting "proof" throughout the thread. What type of proof are you looking for?

Seriously. Is there something you could see or read to make you think that the Christians may have it right?

I've never demanded proof from anyone. I know it doesn't exist.

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

[timvp]

I've never demanded proof from anyone. I know it doesn't exist.

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

Wow. Just wow.

Not only are you damn dumb, but you are a liar on top of being dumb. That is the worst combination possible. Pick one trait or the other -- not both.

Never demanded proof, aye?

If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.

You believe what you believe through FAITH. Faith is believing in something that you have no factual proof or evidence for. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all for me to ask that those who do believe in Christianity to acknowledge that they do so through complete blind faith. Not because they can factually prove what they believe is right.

As I have repeatedly said before, the burden of proof is on you to prove to me that the historicity of Jesus is true as indicated in the NT Gospels.

The situation we are in here is akin to you trying to explain to me that Bigfoot is real. The burden of proof is on you the believer to prove to me that Bigfoot indeed existed, not on me the disbeliever to come up with evidence to the contrary. If you cannot provide me with sufficient evidence then I can reasonably conclude that your argument is not valid, I cannot say that Bigfoot doesn't exist since I don't hold that proof but I can say that your argument isn't valid. Thus far you've provided me with no sufficient evidence to support your argument.

This is central to my point, Christians have no valid historical argument to make about the historicity of Jesus. I'm sorry the facts simply don't exist. What we do know is that the NT Gospels contain fabrications and that important early Christian writings were doctored by the Church to support the view of Jesus indicated in NT Gospel writings. In fact there is more evidence to suggest just the opposite, that the NT Gospel writings were completely fabricated.

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

The bottomline is that you CAN'T.

Jesus may have existed historically, but we have zero evidence or proof that he was the Son of God or anything of the like.

For the fifth time, I will ask you what type of proof it is that you want.

[Extra Stout]

That's sort of my point. If the only evidence that exists is clearly pro-Christian biased and doctored sources it makes it rather hard to form any definitive conclusions about anything relating to Jesus.

By the standard you demand, no information about antiquity can be known. All ancient sources have subjective bias.

[Mr. Peabody]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

[spurster]

My arguments with Stout have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and whether we can prove that or not. Clearly we cannot.

It has to do with the historicity of the accounts of Jesus as portrayed in the NT Gospels. I can't make it any clearer than this, if you don't understand the distinction that's not my problem.

Historicity meaning? Doubt on whether they are true? Doubt on whether the writers believed that they were writing down the truth? Doubt on when they were written? Doubt on who wrote them? Doubt on how many degrees of separation between Jesus and the writers? Putting aside the first doubt, I think scholarship is very favorable on the others.

[Tully365]

By the standard you demand, no information about antiquity can be known. All ancient sources have subjective bias.

True-- if I declared the works of Shakespeare to be my holy gospel, it would be a much more difficult task to defend them than it is to simply admire them.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

True-- if I declared the works of Shakespeare to be my holy gospel, it would be a much more difficult task to defend them than it is to simply admire them.

Are you trying to tell me that Hamlet wasn't the son of God?

[romad_20]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

no ass to mouth post yet, huh?

[timvp]

I've never demanded proof from anyone.

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

Astounding.

[Tully365]

Are you trying to tell me that Hamlet wasn't the son of God?

Close enough for me. There are more things in heaven and earth, MaryAnnKilledGinger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Mr. Peabody]

no ass to mouth post yet, huh?

We'll end up there, but it may not be for another 15-20 pages.

[Tully365]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

no ass to mouth post yet, huh?

Crazy projecting going on!

[TheMadHatter]

Wow. Just wow.

Not only are you damn dumb, but you are a liar on top of being dumb. That is the worst combination possible. Pick one trait or the other -- not both.

Never demanded proof, aye?

For the fifth time, I will ask you what type of proof it is that you want.

Your taking my statements out of context and ignoring the point I was driving at. Of course I know that there isn't any definitive proof that proves Jesus is the Son of God. Again, your reading comprehension is horrific. You clearly do not understand what point I was getting at earlier in this thread so it makes no sense for us to continue this discussion. But go ahead and act like you owned me.

By the standard you demand, no information about antiquity can be known. All ancient sources have subjective bias.

By that same standard you cannot attack DaDakota for not knowing what went on in the Nicaea Council as the only information you have on that event is from biased ancient sources.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Close enough for me. There are more things in heaven and earth, MaryAnnKilledGinger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Only if flights of angels sing me to my rest. I'm picky about angels that way.

[Shastafarian]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

I bet angel_luv gives great helmet