23 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThey mean nothing to me. I see them [as a great many Christians do too] as being on the 'tabloid' end of the religionist spectrum, and they have no relevance to me.
What do you think of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo
as evidence for the resurrection of the Christ since there is an empty
tomb in Jerusalem reported to be the tomb where Jesus was placed
after His death on the cross.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFThis debate is unique in that we have converged in this forum where our conversation is limited to merely words and brief exchanges of ideas and concepts not fully developed.
I understand your point of view. Tell me; have you ever converted someone by talking to them the way you are talking to me here? Take for example, like you said earlier: "If I tell you I believe in something, and I share that with you, why do you accuse me of telling you lies [when you say you don't believe what I say]". Has this kind of 'argumentation' actually ...[text shortened]... rked for you on anybody? Were you yourself converted by someone talking to you in that way?
I assume much in the knowledge you possess to fill in where I am abbreviating. I have never to my knowledge ever convinced anyone that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life in a letter or in any forum. It would be very interesting indeed if I actually wrote something that triggered a thought progression within the one reading it that lead to their conversion.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by josephwWord of advice if you ever decide to try: telling people they are "essentially" accusing you of "lying" when they say they do not share your beliefs, is unlikely to work with anyone.
I have never to my knowledge ever convinced anyone that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life in a letter or in any forum.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFSo you will only consider evidence against the resurrection. I understand
They mean nothing to me. I see them [as a great many Christians do too] as being on the 'tabloid' end of the religionist spectrum, and they have no relevance to me.
you completely now. No need to discuss this anymore. Bye. 😏
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe shroud isn't proof of anything. It has no 'spiritual' meaning whatsoever. Maybe if I were a Christian I might cling to the hope that it is evidence of something, but - not having the same need or hope invested in its "meaning" as you do - I don't. I hope the shroud helps you make sense of your life. I fully support your right to pursue or construct - and propagate - your own chosen belief system.
I don't know if there is any. But you just proved my point by jumping
all over that. 😏
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsfalse
Modern medical advances have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
😏
P.S. Doctors and researchers can do their jobs just fine without believing
in it. Also electricity would not benefit me if I refused to flip the switch.]
correct. their beliefs on the matter are irrelevant. electricity does not have to benefit you nor does it benefit from your beliefs and your beliefs on the matter are also irrelevant.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYour beliefs are irrelevant to me. 😛
false
😏
P.S. Doctors and researchers can do their jobs just fine without believing
in it. Also electricity would not benefit me if I refused to flip the switch.]
correct. their beliefs on the matter are irrelevant. electricity does not have to benefit you nor does it benefit from your beliefs and your beliefs on the matter are also irrelevant.
25 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFIf it is true, that Jesus is the way, and I tell one that truth, and that one says they don't believe it, for whatever reason, is that not akin to saying I'm lying?
Word of advice if you ever decide to try: telling people they are "essentially" accusing you of "lying" when they say they do not share your beliefs, is unlikely to work with anyone.
What is the difference between saying to someone "you're lying" or "I don't believe it" when one tells them the truth?
We can split that hair, but it's the same hair. I'm not offended when someone calls me a liar, or tells me they don't believe what I say when I tell them the truth. It's not my truth. I didn't invent God. But I believe God.
25 Dec 11
Originally posted by josephwYour "truth" is subjective and it is a belief that you hold. For someone to say they don't believe the same thing as you is not even remotely like calling you a "liar". What you are doing is akin to wordplay.
What is the difference between saying to someone "you're lying" or "I don't believe it" when one tells them the truth?
Merry Christmas. 😵
25 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFTruth is objective, but produces a subjective response.
Your "truth" is subjective and it is a belief that you hold. For someone to say they don't believe the same thing as you is not even remotely like calling you a "liar". What you are doing is akin to wordplay.
Merry Christmas. 😵
I don't want you thinking I was suggesting that you called me a liar. And yes, what I am doing can be said to be wordplay.
A rolling stone gathers no moss. I roll every stone I possibly can. How else can one discover truth?
Merry Christmas John.
25 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwAs Abram, Abraham was not a righteous man, but he believed God and it was
If it is true, that Jesus is the way, and I tell one that truth, and that one says they don't believe it, for whatever reason, is that not akin to saying I'm lying?
What is the difference between saying to someone "you're lying" or "I don't believe it" when one tells them the truth?
We can split that hair, but it's the same hair. I'm not offended when the truth. It's not [b]my truth. I didn't invent God. But I believe God.[/b]
counted to him as righteousness. Merry Christmas. 🙂