Biblical contradictions.

[Baruch]

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

There is nothing I could care less about than your after-death fiction.

I mean, really.

Don't be silly, he was trolling ... you have to know Hebrew of course ;-)

[Cavebear]

If ever I say, prove that Jesus did not exist, It will be a reflection of poor evidence.
What I do know is that it would be impossible for Jesus not to have existed.
The whole collective circumstances about His life is testimony of just that!
The Christian faith grew exponentially after the apostles went out to the Jews at first, then the Gentiles.
The Apostles, an disciples were not scared to lose their lives to testify that Jesus was God manifested in the Flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
They wrote about the life of Jesus, wrote letters, and some lived for 70 years after Jesus left the Earth, such as John.
Their disciples, such as Polycarp and Justin Martyr, gave their lives because they knew the apostles and Disciples.
If anyone were to have fed them lies, this history would never have happened.
Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

Still not seeing an factual evidence for Jesus existing as a real person...

[Mike Cl]

Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

That is exactly what I think.  A very factual statement; totally backed by the evidence.

[Cavebear]

That is exactly what I think.  A very factual statement; totally backed by the evidence.

No factual evidence, right?  Did I miss something in your post?

[Baruch]

No factual evidence, right?  Did I miss something in your post?

Context.  MikeCL is referring to the factual evidence that Jesus never existed as a historical person.  I also agree.

[Cavebear]

Context.  MikeCL is referring to the factual evidence that Jesus never existed as a historical person.  I also agree.

Oh complete agreement!  Been saying that for decades.  Just wasn't sure I understood.  Sometimes when I get agreement, I'm surprised even here sometimes, LOL!  Comes from living in a generally weird theist world...

[Baruch]

Oh complete agreement!  Been saying that for decades.  Just wasn't sure I understood.  Sometimes when I get agreement, I'm surprised even here sometimes, LOL!  Comes from living in a generally weird theist world...

When people use counter-factual sentences (in context of someone else's post) they are going to be misunderstood.

[Mike Cl]

No factual evidence, right?  Did I miss something in your post?

Cavebear, read mouse's statement.  It says that to think jesus lived is not factual. 

[Cavebear]

Cavebear, read mouse's statement.  It says that to think jesus lived is not factual.

His posts are too annoying to read.  If he wants to say that, let him say that simply and directly without 20 paragraphs of nonsense.

[Mike Cl]

His posts are too annoying to read.  If he wants to say that, let him say that simply and directly without 20 paragraphs of nonsense.

Cavebear--focus!  Just read the one sentence quote of Mouse.  He said, I guess because he doesn't not really know how to write or communicate, he said that to believe that jesus existed is factual.

[SGOS]

Cavebear, read mouse's statement.  It says that to think jesus lived is not factual. 

I have to admire your willingness to read his lengthy posts.  While I won't do it, it's probably good practice for spotting logical fallacies and psychologically deranged minds.  And sometimes it's even fun for me to sift through long texts to spot the fallacies the way a child looks for Waldo in the Where's Waldo series of picture books.

It's not uncommon to see walls of text in debates from theists, because walls are good ways to hide fallacies, which need to be kept out of view from both the reader and usually the writer himself.

Logic and to a lesser degree science, loves simplicity.  There's even that rule of thumb science uses that says if two theories explain a phenomena equally well, the simpler one is more likely correct.  It's a surprising suggestion, although there are reasons that I'm not going into that supports that practice.

So what could be simpler than goddidit as a theory?  Well aside from the fact that it depends on an unverifiable entity to explain anything in it's first premise, much like the belief in unverifiable phlogiston explains fire, it doesn't lead to further inquiry and understanding, which would add to mankind's knowledge, or horror of horrors, to something that might challenge an unsupportable belief in a deity.

While goddidit is the simpler theory, it does in fact raise more questions, but always excludes the most fundamental question, "Is there a god at all?"  The study of apologetics has been invented to explain these further questions. 

Do I correctly remember hearing that apologetics is an actual field of study taught in Bible colleges?  If it is, apologetics is a horrible name that doesn't inspire much confidence in the field itself.  The course synopsis should read:

Introduces students to various compiled lists of logical fallacies, and explains how the fallacies can be effectively used in reasoning and debate to support Biblical contradictions and extraordinary claims that defy everyday common sense.  The student will learn how to strengthen his personal belief and faith, and to reject the most fundamental findings of scientific study.  He will also learn to weave science and fallacy together into convincing arguments that will test the stamina of the average science oriented skeptic. He will learn that a logical fallacy is not a argumentative flaw, but will come to see it as a supportive asset to be used in convincing those who do not yet know God's grace.

[Mike Cl]

I have to admire your willingness to read his lengthy posts.  While I won't do it, it's probably good practice for spotting logical fallacies and psychologically deranged minds.  And sometimes it's even fun for me to sift through long texts to spot the fallacies the way a child looks for Waldo in the Where's Waldo series of picture books.

It's not uncommon to see walls of text in debates from theists, because walls are good ways to hide fallacies, which need to be kept out of view from both the reader and usually the writer himself.

Logic and to a lesser degree science, loves simplicity.  There's even that rule of thumb science uses that says if two theories explain a phenomena equally well, the simpler one is more likely correct.  It's a surprising suggestion, although there are reasons that I'm not going into that supports that practice.

So what could be simpler than goddidit as a theory?  Well aside from the fact that it depends on an unverifiable entity to explain anything in it's first premise, much like the belief in unverifiable phlogiston explains fire, it doesn't lead to further inquiry and understanding, which would add to mankind's knowledge, or horror of horrors, to something that might challenge an unsupportable belief in a deity.

While goddidit is the simpler theory, it does in fact raise more questions, but always excludes the most fundamental question, "Is there a god at all?"  The study of apologetics has been invented to explain these further questions. 

Do I correctly remember hearing that apologetics is an actual field of study taught in Bible colleges?  If it is, apologetics is a horrible name that doesn't inspire much confidence in the field itself.  The course synopsis should read:

First, thanks for the admiring.....:))  But I only read that one sentence because it was copied by Cavebear in one of his replies.  Then I reread it.  And laughed.  He was saying the exact opposite of what the point was of his mile long diatribe.  I think he was trying to prove jesus existed as a real person, but his last sentence said that to believe that would not be factual.  The irony was wonderful!
Yes, apologetics is a field study for theists.  When I was deep into my bible study, I used a couple of books from schools that taught that subject.  I've always found that title to be somewhat odd and mildly amusing.  I've always thought that anyone who took it seriously as a study should apologize. :)

[Cavebear]

Cavebear--focus!  Just read the one sentence quote of Mouse.  He said, I guess because he doesn't not really know how to write or communicate, he said that to believe that jesus existed is factual.

Why would saying that "jesus existed is factual" be surprising from Mousetrap?

[Baruch]

I have to admire your willingness to read his lengthy posts.  While I won't do it, it's probably good practice for spotting logical fallacies and psychologically deranged minds.  And sometimes it's even fun for me to sift through long texts to spot the fallacies the way a child looks for Waldo in the Where's Waldo series of picture books.

It's not uncommon to see walls of text in debates from theists, because walls are good ways to hide fallacies, which need to be kept out of view from both the reader and usually the writer himself.

Logic and to a lesser degree science, loves simplicity.  There's even that rule of thumb science uses that says if two theories explain a phenomena equally well, the simpler one is more likely correct.  It's a surprising suggestion, although there are reasons that I'm not going into that supports that practice.

So what could be simpler than goddidit as a theory?  Well aside from the fact that it depends on an unverifiable entity to explain anything in it's first premise, much like the belief in unverifiable phlogiston explains fire, it doesn't lead to further inquiry and understanding, which would add to mankind's knowledge, or horror of horrors, to something that might challenge an unsupportable belief in a deity.

While goddidit is the simpler theory, it does in fact raise more questions, but always excludes the most fundamental question, "Is there a god at all?"  The study of apologetics has been invented to explain these further questions. 

Do I correctly remember hearing that apologetics is an actual field of study taught in Bible colleges?  If it is, apologetics is a horrible name that doesn't inspire much confidence in the field itself.  The course synopsis should read:

Apologetics and polemics are still taught in seminaries.  My ex was in seminary as recently as 1998.

Einstein says, if you can't explain it to a six year old, then you don't understand it yourself.

Don't get too excited if Mousetrap makes typos, or is confused.  Common problems those are.

[Mike Cl]

Why would saying that "jesus existed is factual" be surprising from Mousetrap?

Cavebear, Cavebear, my man. :))  He didn't quite say that.  This is what he said as the last sentence of one of his posts dealing with Jesus:'Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.'  Isn't that saying if you deny that he never existed that would not be factual--well, I don't deny that he never existed--that is what I think--and mousey is telling me that that is factual.  He is arguing with himself.