Feb 26, 2012 -- 12:41PM, bigbear6161 wrote:

You would make a good judge, Dave. You are very fair minded.

I agree!  :)

Feb 23, 2012 -- 11:03AM, johnacancienne wrote:

Are you telling me you've never heard the phrase "god damn you"? What do you assume this to mean? A blessing?

What Christian prays "god damn you"?

Because sometimes people just plain need it. OK?

And the satisfaction it brings in delivering that to someone is phenomenal; better than an orgasm when released to the universe!

Delivering what--a curse?  If you are in such an embroiled state of mind as to wish harm on another human being, you are only cursing yourself.

Feb 29, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Adelphe wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:55AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

vs. magic) as the only 2 alternatives, and I pointed out the fallacious reasoning.  And even in the bubble of christianity-if "magic" is worthy of mention, and you consider it false-you need to be consistent and involve ALL the other "false" ideas out there.  So my issue with you is one of "inconsistency".   Either you just say "JESUS" and ignore everything else, or you acknowledge ALL the "false" choices, not just one.  

What don't you understand about "Christian or Magician"?  Christian or "everything else."

Jesus? no.  Mao?  Hell yes!!!  Mao was real and it would have been frightening to live in China in the 50s, 60s, or 70s.  Have you ever read about the Cultural Revolution?  NOW THAT IS SCARY!

So there shouldn't be anything scary about "taking every thought captive to obey Christ."

Sorry, my point stands:  There is no more or less "magic" in christianity than most other belief systems, and in many cases, much moreso in christianity, which makes the thread title a strawman, nothing fancier.

And I agree, there is nothing scary about Jesus, glad we could agree.   

Feb 29, 2012 -- 10:28AM, Adelphe wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 11:57AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

Adelphe, The point I'm making is that an historical resurrection would seem much more unbelievable interpretation than the modern worldview influenced approach of liberals, whom you imply believe in magic! I find that very ironic. Accuse us of being too scientific or too rationalist or too post-modern -that I could understand. But too magical? Go figure!

Too faithless.

I disagree. To hold beliefs in the absence of evidence is the essence of faith. Faith is irrelevant where there is compelling evidence. A belief held because of supportive evidence is not a matter of faith, for it is a fact; a belief held in spite of refutative evidence is likewise not a matter of faith, for it is a delusion.

I am not an atheist, though my sense of God corresponds to nothing in established religious thought. I have no evidence to demonstrate that what I sense is real; I accept it on faith.

But look at Christianity, whose very creedal statements cite scripture as the authoritative basis for their beliefs--as if the Bible represented proof. If the Bible is accepted as proof, what need is there for faith?

And yet you portray those who do not accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God as "faithless." Well, I guess it depends on what object we are saying requires faith. To accept God in the absence of faith in scriptural authority bespeaks faith in God; to accept God based on faith in scriptural authority bespeaks faith in the Bible. So what you are really referring to is lack of faith in scripture, not lack of faith in God.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 8:57AM, jlb32168 wrote:

Feb 29, 2012 -- 1:53PM, Heretic_for_Christ wrote:

I disagree. To hold beliefs in the absence of evidence is the essence of faith.

That is blind faith, HtC.  If a faith is informed by premises that might be true, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, then faith in Christianity is not blind.  It is logical and reasonable.  The evidence isn’t conclusive evidence, but it is circumstantial.  The problem with most skeptics on this board is that if evidence isn’t conclusive then it isn’t evidence as far as they’re concerned – their incorrect understanding of “evidence” notwithstanding.

What you say is true—yet I see what seems to be a disconnect between iffy evidence and an infinite powerful and wise God. If there is definitive evidence for the existence of temporal and mundane things, how could the evidence for the existence of God, who is supposedly eternal and cosmic, be less than definitive? I see only three possible answers: God is something like what people assume God to be but does not wish to provide any definitive evidence about himself; God exists but is nothing like what people assume God to be; God does not exist. For if God is something like what people assume God to be—an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe--and he wished us to have certain knowledge about himself, then we would have that knowledge, as definitively as we have any knowledge.