Intellectual Honesty from a Christian

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I will take your advise and give up the attempt to set you straight, since you clearly do not even know your own mind.

If your intentions for starting the thread in the first place are anything other than what I have surmised, the OP is rendered nonsense. Par for course, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_or_cut_bait

He is just a tiny minnow. You couldn't cut bait small enough for him. 😀

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are a true ignoramus.

Let me explain to you.

A logical argument is one that given a premise (or set of premises) A is true.
And given a logically sound argument B.
Then conclusion C MUST be true as well.

The power of logic is that it allows you to prove that IF A THEN C.
Now if you can't prove that A is true (by rational or evidentiary me ...[text shortened]... s that contradict the laws of physics and all known evidence.
You use nothing but assumptions.

In rationalism the point of having as accurate a world view as possible and holding as few false beliefs as possible is so as to make sure that as many premises that you use as possible are factually verified and not just assumed.

You are using the label Rationalism in a way in which I would like to ask you a few questions. Tell me if you agree with these couple of sentences:

"It is not uncommon for empiricism to lead to skepticism or materialism as in Hume and Hobbes. But rationalists tend to argue for the existence of God. Characteristic of a rationalist's approach to God is the ontological argument from the idea of a perfect or necessary Being."

Do you find merit to that paragraph in the history of philisophy ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I will take your advice and give up the attempt to set you straight, since you clearly do not even know your own mind.

If your intentions for starting the thread in the first place are anything other than what I have surmised, the OP is rendered nonsense. Par for course, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_or_cut_bait

Lets see: You went off on the guy without cause, you chose to "pile on" in an effort to try to "save face" and even now you can't bring yourself to admit the truth.

You're really something. But then, looking at your track record, its' not unexpected.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand logic. I have already demonstrated that before. But you can't use
something that is assumed to prove the truth. That is what the evolutionists
try to do. Even in religion one can not prove the truth with assumptions.
HalleluYah !!!

Even in religion one can not prove the truth with assumptions.

Why do you believe "Jesus was resurrected from the dead" is a true statement?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Even in religion one can not prove the truth with assumptions.

Why do you believe "Jesus was resurrected from the dead" is a true statement?[/b]

There are many reasons. I will just name a few.

!. Eyewitness accounts still exists.
http://themoorings.org/apologetics/resurrection/resur1.html

2. Empty tomb still exists.
http://www.icr.org/ChristEmptyTomb/

3. Christ's burial linen still exists.
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/

4. Christ's burial face cloth still exists.
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/history04.htm

5. Christianity still exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

P.S. (1 Corintians 15:12-22 Amplified Bible)

But now if Christ (the Messiah) is preached as raised from the dead, how is it that some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not risen;

And if Christ has not risen, then our preaching is in vain [it amounts to nothing] and your faith is devoid of truth and is fruitless (without effect, empty, imaginary, and unfounded).

We are even discovered to be misrepresenting God, for we testified of Him that He raised Christ, Whom He did not raise in case it is true that the dead are not raised.

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised;

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is mere delusion [futile, fruitless], and you are still in your sins [under the control and penalty of sin];

And further, those who have died in [spiritual fellowship and union with] Christ have perished (are lost)!

If we who are [abiding] in Christ have hope only in this life and that is all, then we are of all people most miserable and to be pitied.

But the fact is that Christ (the Messiah) has been raised from the dead, and He became the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death].

For since [it was] through a man that death [came into the world, it is] also through a Man that the resurrection of the dead [has come].

For just as [because of their union of nature] in Adam all people die, so also [by virtue of their union of nature] shall all in Christ be made alive.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many reasons. I will just name a few.

!. Eyewitness accounts still exists.
http://themoorings.org/apologetics/resurrection/resur1.html

2. Empty tomb still exists.
http://www.icr.org/ChristEmptyTomb/

3. Christ's burial linen still exists.
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/

4. Christ's burial face cloth still exists.
http://www.ske ...[text shortened]... .com/history04.htm

5. Christianity still exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

OK, take (1) and (2). What basic assumption are you making in order to claim the empty tomb and eyewitnesses as evidence of Christ's resurrection?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
OK, take (1) and (2). What basic assumption are you making in order to claim the empty tomb and eyewitnesses as evidence of Christ's resurrection?

I make no assuptions; they are there for anyone to see. The eyewitness accounts
are still recorded in the Holy Bible for you to look at and examine.
The empty tomb is still in Jerusalem, Israel if you want to travel there to see that it is
still empty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I make no assuptions; they are there for anyone to see. The eyewitness accounts
are still recorded in the Holy Bible for you to look at and examine.
The empty tomb is still in Jerusalem, Israel if you want to travel there to see that it is
still empty.

I make no assuptions; they are there for anyone to see. The eyewitness accounts
are still recorded in the Holy Bible for you to look at and examine.

Aren't you are making the assumption that the New Testament manuscripts are reliable and authentic? You would have to if you wish to use them as evidence, wouldn't you? And isn't the reliability and authenticity of the NT an assumption predicated on still further assumptions, e.g., the integrity of the apostles or the accuracy of the oral tradition?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For a little while, I've had a series of short discussions with a retired pastor regarding the teachings of Jesus. Recently he acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others whereby essentially making the New Testament/Bible his "Lord" rather than Jesus. It was refreshing that he had the intellectual hone ...[text shortened]... lsewhere should take heart in knowing it is possible to get some measure of it.

Comments?

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I make no assuptions; they are there for anyone to see. The eyewitness accounts
are still recorded in the Holy Bible for you to look at and examine.

Aren't you are making the assumption that the New Testament manuscripts are reliable and authentic? You would have to if you wish to use them as evidence, wouldn't you? And isn't the reliabilit ...[text shortened]... rther assumptions, e.g., the integrity of the apostles or the accuracy of the oral tradition?[/b]

Those manuscripts have already been studied for more years than any other written
manuscrpts to prove reliabilty and authenticity and have passed every test that
could be verified by many scholars, medical scientists, and archaeologists. I do
not see any need to make any assumptions about that. The unbelievers haven't
been able to crack that, even though they have tried.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

lol. The first I'd heard of the Jefferson Bible was from the very same retired pastor some years back. He'd asked me if I was a "Jeffersonian" and I didn't know what he was talking about.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Those manuscripts have already been studied for more years than any other written
manuscrpts to prove reliabilty and authenticity and have passed every test that
could be verified by many scholars, medical scientists, and archaeologists. I do
not see any need to make any assumptions about that. The unbelievers haven't
been able to crack that, even though they have tried.

Now aren't you making the assumption that the "scholars, medical scientists, and archaeologists" were correct in their assessment?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Now aren't you making the assumption that the "scholars, medical scientists, and archaeologists" were correct in their assessment?

How could all of them be wrong? That's illogical. You need to learn to think logically. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
How could all of them be wrong? That's illogical. You need to learn to think logically. 😏

Good one. I'll take your evasion to mean that you've understood my point.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How could all of them be wrong? That's illogical. You need to learn to think logically. 😏

No, it isn't illogical. Consensus is no guarantee of correctness.

There was a time when scientists believed that the sun went around the earth. All of them were wrong.