Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: 2Corrie on August 02, 2017, 03:42:26 PM
-
What do you think?
-
Can we first sort out the dilemma over apostrophes?
-
Is that the one starring Jude Law?
He was very good.
I vote yes.
-
What do you think?
Okay, so it seems to be Apostles' rather than Apostle's, right? And you're referring to that bit of fallacious gumph perpetrated by C.S. Lewis? (God, Liar or Lunatic). Other options are available.
-
The original Lewis trilemma has been widely criticized as being too narrow. In other words, it excludes other views. The same is probably true here, for example, it's not clear if we are talking about the people who wrote stuff down and the followers of Jesus, who may not be the same people. Anyway, either of them could be mistaken, for example. Deluded/liars/truthful doesn't really cover all the possibilities. There is also the vexed question of plagiarism, which I have to admit, I know very little about in relation to ancient texts, where it seems to have been seen as OK to an extent.
-
Does the option about being committed to the truth include any implication that the gospels are true?
I am sure the gospel writers believed what they wrote was true but that doesn't mean it was.
-
Yes, it shows how these either/or arguments often contain hidden assumptions, or presuppositions. Thus in the Lewis trilemma, he has as one alternative, that Jesus is God. However, this ignores the point that he might have sincerely believed that, but he wasn't. And also the more subtle point that early texts don't have him saying he is God, and this is added later. So being God is imputed to him - all of this is concealed in Lewis's either/or, but Lewis is after a black and white position, in other words, a false dichotomy, trichotomy I suppose.
-
I went for the first option as being the closest to my opinion. However, note that options 1 and 3 are not exclusive. You can be a person of integrity and deluded at the same time.
Another problem with the question is that the title and the question are about different people. The gospel writers are unknown but it seems unlikely that they were the Apostles. Even on the traditional (and wrong) Christian view, only two of them were apostles.
-
Haven't a clue exactly who you are supposed to be talking about, as the gospel writers and the apostles weren't necessarily the same people. Also, your choices are rather simplistic and don't seem to allow any variations between them, or even other alternatives. They seem to be designed according to what I consider to be the fatuousness of C.S. Lewis's original trilemma. Consequentially I shan't be bothering to vote. :)
-
Are we all assuming what we have now is what's ALWAYS been ??? ;)
-
The original Lewis trilemma has been widely criticized as being too narrow. In other words, it excludes other views. The same is probably true here, for example, it's not clear if we are talking about the people who wrote stuff down and the followers of Jesus, who may not be the same people. Anyway, either of them could be mistaken, for example. Deluded/liars/truthful doesn't really cover all the possibilities. There is also the vexed question of plagiarism, which I have to admit, I know very little about in relation to ancient texts, where it seems to have been seen as OK to an extent.
Lewis's trilemma is often criticised for lumping mistaken in with sad. That is probably inconsequential except to those seeking some kind of excuse.
We should also take to task those who shimmy evasively around one of Lewises other dilemmas namely Christianity is either true or it is the most successful con job in history.
-
Lewis's trilemma is often criticised for lumping mistaken for sad. That is probably inconsequential except to those seeking some kind of excuse.
We should also take to task those who shimmy evasively around one of Lewises other dilemmas namely Christianity is either true or it is the most successful con job in history.
Would that type of arguement also apply to Islam?
Either it is true or it is the second most successful con job in history?
-
Would that type of arguement also apply to Islam?
Either it is true or it is the second most successful con job in history?
It probably applies to naturalism too although I think there is a trilemma there.
Naturalism is true, an up and coming biggest Con Job or the most massive collective act of de facto fence squatting the world has ever seen.
-
Lewis's trilemma is often criticised for lumping mistaken in with sad. That is probably inconsequential except to those seeking some kind of excuse.
We should also take to task those who shimmy evasively around one of Lewises other dilemmas namely Christianity is either true or it is the most successful con job in history.
Its a very appealing message.
-
It's another false dichotomy. Between true and a con, there are other alternatives, e.g. mistaken.
-
It's another false dichotomy. Between true and a con, there are other alternatives, e.g. mistaken.
And each possibility is not exclusive. It's possible for bits of it to be true,bits of it to be mistakes, bits of it to be miscommunication, bits of it to be lies (and note not all lies are cons). The while approach is logically fallacious and redolent of dishonesty and/or desperation.
-
Yes. There are also different kinds of true; for example, 'Hamlet' could be seen as true about the human condition - or not. You can't reduce ideas to slogans, which is what these trilemmas and dilemmas do.
-
I think it's a bit sad to see people who are in what a rich, complex belief system boil into down into this black or white dull unnuanced, inhuman and inhumane xerox. Perhaps it's the jejune need of the apologist to be like a science that seems to haunt so much of the endless witterings about ontological and kalam and things things that are never the reason they believe but seem to be some philosophical rags to give them some small sense of respectability.
-
There are arguments that positivism basically wrecked Christian thought, as it could not match requirements of verifiability and so on. Very difficult to demonstrate this link, of course, especially as Christian ideas had come under attack through people like Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and so on. But it's as if there is some desire to provide scientificalistic proof of Christianity, which is a doomed approach. Far better to look at the imaginative and symbolic power of parts of it. But I suppose that's not considered to be 'true'.
-
And each possibility is not exclusive. It's possible for bits of it to be true,bits of it to be mistakes, bits of it to be miscommunication, bits of it to be lies (and note not all lies are cons). The while approach is logically fallacious and redolent of dishonesty and/or desperation.
And that is a very consumerist cast of religion.
It also ignores any idea of centrality and the almost sheer difference of what Dawkins calls cultural Christianity ( shopping for stain glass windows, whist drives and church bazaars ) and orthodox Christianity which requires focus, a change of thought and commitment.
Not to face up to the enormity of the possible central con or the enormity of the possibility of the central truth is the dishonesty here.
You are like the person in the art gallery who hates the work but rather than a full on committed defacement of it prefers the secretive flicking bits of his lunch at it.
-
There are arguments that positivism basically wrecked Christian thought, as it could not match requirements of verifiability and so on. Very difficult to demonstrate this link, of course, especially as Christian ideas had come under attack through people like Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and so on. But it's as if there is some desire to provide scientificalistic proof of Christianity, which is a doomed approach. Far better to look at the imaginative and symbolic power of parts of it. But I suppose that's not considered to be 'true'.
But the non positive approach just results in using Christianity as a piss wall for that ever so nice secular humanism.
To put it less graphically you have Christians who are nice to you and some who have called for focus. Be honest , none of either type have moved you toward Christianity, have they?
-
And that is a very consumerist cast of religion.
It also ignores any idea of centrality and the almost sheer difference of what Dawkins calls cultural Christianity ( shopping for stain glass windows, whist drives and church bazaars ) and orthodox Christianity which requires focus, a change of thought and commitment.
Not to face up to the enormity of the possible central con or the enormity of the possibility of the central truth is the dishonesty here.
You are like the person in the art gallery who hates the work but rather than a full on committed defacement of it prefers the secretive flicking bits of his lunch at it.
A dichotomy needs to be a proper dichotomy. This isn't.
-
A dichotomy needs to be a proper dichotomy. This isn't.
I think we are rather hiding behind the number of "Lammas" thus some how bypassing the need for focussing on any of them.
If you think Christianity has been a global mistake about a man coming back from the dead and millions claiming to have encountered him rather than a super con trick or global conspiracy I'd like to see the working out on that.
Lewis aside I think we can agree it boils down to one dilemma.......true or false?
Anything more and you are introducing the below resolved state.
-
If you think Christianity has been a global mistake about a man coming back from the dead and millions claiming to have encountered him rather than a super con trick or global conspiracy I'd like to see the working out on that.
Easily done.
1. Actually dead people don't come back from actual death.
2. Stories of "encounters" with dead people are more economically/parsimoniously explained by the demonstrated tenets of human psychology than the wholly unevidenced wild wibble of supernatural assumptions unsupported by evidence.
-
I think we are rather hiding behind the number of "Lammas" thus some how bypassing the need for focussing on any of them.
If you think Christianity has been a global mistake about a man coming back from the dead and millions claiming to have encountered him rather than a super con trick or global conspiracy I'd like to see the working out on that.
Lewis aside I think we can agree it boils down to one dilemma.......true or false?
Anything more and you are introducing the below resolved state.
If I point out that the census story in the gospel is demonstrably untrue, will your faith disappear because it must all be false? No. And nor should it.
I don't know what the full and real details are for everything in Christianity. And I don't have an obligation to do so. Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
Easily done.
1. Actually dead people don't come back from actual death.
2. Stories of "encounters" with dead people are more economically/parsimoniously explained by the demonstrated tenets of human psychology than the wholly unevidenced wild wibble of supernatural assumptions unsupported by evidence.
So Shaker, the most monumental mistake in history or the biggest Con in History?
-
Ah, excluded middle fallacy, it's been at least minutes since we last met.
-
Easily done.
1. Actually dead people don't come back from actual death.
2. Stories of "encounters" with dead people are more economically/parsimoniously explained by the demonstrated tenets of human psychology than the wholly unevidenced wild wibble of supernatural assumptions unsupported by evidence.
2. Positive assertion. Please demonstrate.
-
Ah, excluded middle fallacy, it's been at least minutes since we last met.
And the excluded middles are?
1. Unknown unknowns
2. Something science will discover in future
3. Whatever they are they relieve me of the burden of having to focus on anything that's been put to me.
4. There are excluded middles and here they are.
-
2. Positive assertion. Please demonstrate.
You want a demonstration that people who are dead don't come back from the dead? Ok.
Right, I need a volunteer...
-
I cannot vote for any of the above, Corrie.
I believe that the letters were only accounts of those who witnessed the events of that time.
I do not believe anyone could be liars or deceivers if they followed Christ.
But I believe the teaching is do as I do. So everyone to do as Christ did.
Which includes the writers of the letters and gospels.
-
I cannot vote for any of the above, Corrie.
I believe that the letters were only accounts of those who witnessed the events of that time.
I do not believe anyone could be liars or deceivers if they followed Christ.
But I believe the teaching is do as I do. So everyone to do as Christ did.
Which includes the writers of the letters and gospels.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sass, I know quite a number of liars and deceivers, who claim to be followers of Jesus, including people I have met on-line!
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sass, I know quite a number of liars and deceivers, who claim to be followers of Jesus, including people I have met on-line!
Sassy is just using the No True Scotsman fallacy just as you were about possible resurrections.
-
Sassy is just using the No True Scotsman fallacy just as you were about possible resurrections.
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
Sassy would use the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that any true follower of Christ's would not be a liar. You are using it in terns of resurrection to say that no one who cones back from the dead was truly dead.
-
Sassy would use the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that any true follower of Christ's would not be a liar. You are using it in terns of resurrection to say that no one who cones back from the dead was truly dead.
I did say, 'in my opinion', whereas Sass states things for which she has no evidence as a fact.
-
I did say, 'in my opinion', whereas Sass states things for which she has no evidence as a fact.
Doesn't really matter, only opinion isn't a magic phrase. Your opinion is based on a fallacy.
-
Doesn't really matter, only opinion isn't a magic phrase. Your opinion is based on a fallacy.
And what fallacy is that, have you met anyone who has come back from the dead?
-
And what fallacy is that, have you met anyone who has come back from the dead?
I already posted this, see back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.
-
We seem to be in Wonderland all of a sudden. Apparently, the claim "nobody ever comes back from the dead" is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
If you are definitely seen alive somewhere, it means you were not dead, I'm tempted to say by definition. However, we observe dead things and they never come back alive again for any reasonable definition of being dead.
-
We seem to be in Wonderland all of a sudden. Apparently, the claim "nobody ever comes back from the dead" is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
If you are definitely seen alive somewhere, it means you were not dead, I'm tempted to say by definition. However, we observe dead things and they never come back alive again for any reasonable definition of being dead.
I see you are struggling with the the NTS. If the statement no true dead person can ever come back fro the dead, then that's it. It is part of logic. Your incredulity fallacy addition doesn't help.
-
Oh here we fucking go again.
-
Is it your cartilige, Shaker? That can be unpleasant.
-
I see you are struggling with the the NTS.
National Trust for Scotland?
It's those lanyards again, isn't it?
-
I see you are struggling with the the NTS. If the statement no true dead person can ever come back fro the dead, then that's it. It is part of logic. Your incredulity fallacy addition doesn't help.
On the face of it it doesn't sound likean NTS. For something to be a NTS doesn't the definition of something need to be changed to allow an exclusion? Which bit of no dead people ever come backfrom the dead involves a change in definition?
-
On the face of it it doesn't sound likean NTS. For something to be a NTS doesn't the definition of something need to be changed to allow an exclusion? Which bit of no dead people ever come backfrom the dead involves a change in definition?
why does an NTS require a change in definition. The point about it is that it is a definition. If someone came back from the dead they weren't truly dead. (Thar's the NTS)
-
National Trust for Scotland?
It's those lanyards again, isn't it?
Have a cup of tea and get back when you aren't as confused.
-
why does an NTS require a change in definition.
Because that''s what a NTS is. If you look it up on Rational Wiki for example it explains that 'the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership of a group requires and it is this definition which is broken. Thus the NTS fallacy only occurs if the group is later redefined for no valid reason'. For this to be an NTS the definition of death would need to be arbitrary changed for sake of argument.
The point about it is that it is a definition. If someone came back from the dead they weren't truly dead. (Thar's the NTS)
No, there has to be a change in definition for the purpose of the argument for it to be an NTS. So if the definition of being dead is clear and well understood then this isn't an NTS, nor is it one if the definition of being dead isn't clear and well understood at the start. There has to be a change mid argument for no valid reason in order to allow one example to be excluded from the group. Can't see that here but maybe you can clarify.
-
I'm with Maeght. The NTS applies to groupings of people whose definiition or characteristics are subjective and therefore open to challenge and a shift in definition - Scotsmen, Christians, socialists etc.
I don't see how this applies to dead people since their defining characteristic is being, well, dead, and that isn't a subjective judgement.
-
Except the definition of death is exactly not clear and has been the subject if much revision and confusion over time. It is generally a set of characteristics that we use, and what we would be saying here is that even given those characteristics being agreed with to start, should someone then be alive after showing those characteristics then they weren't 'truly' dead - and at that point you have your redefinition.
-
Except the definition of death is exactly not clear and has been the subject if much revision and confusion over time. It is generally a set of characteristics that we use, and what we would be saying here is that even given those characteristics being agreed with to start, should someone then be alive after showing those characteristics then they weren't 'truly' dead
Absolutely.
- and at that point you have your redefinition.
If there isn't a clear and fully understood definition to begin with, disagreeing about a definition doesn't make it an NTS. An NTS is a approach to an argument where the definition is changed by one person for no valid reason. The fact that the exact definition of the point of death is open to debate doesn't make using an alternative deginition to the other person throughout an argument an NTS.
The statement that dead people don't come back to life is fairly loose since it could be argued that people considered dead by one definition of death have been resuscitated. I also think this statement misses the point about Jesus supposedly being devine so except from the normal laws of nature - hence the resurrection would be considered a supernatural event and a miracle. If people did regularly come back to life having died then this would take away the special nature of Jesus wouldn't it?
-
Absolutely.
If there isn't a clear and fully understood definition to begin with, disagreeing about a definition doesn't make it an NTS. An NTS is a approach to an argument where the definition is changed by one person for no valid reason. The fact that the exact definition of the point of death is open to debate doesn't make using an alternative deginition to the other person throughout an argument an NTS.
The statement that dead people don't come back to life is fairly loose since it could be argued that people considered dead by one definition of death have been resuscitated. I also think this statement misses the point about Jesus supposedly being devine so except from the normal laws of nature - hence the resurrection would be considered a supernatural event and a miracle. If people did regularly come back to life having died then this would take away the special nature of Jesus wouldn't it?
On the first point, it's still a redefinition if they normal characteristics are just rejected as no longer meaning 'truly' dead. Let's imagine that Frankenstein was true, then corpses that were truly dead by all judgements up to then are capable of revivification. That then becomes a redefinition.
The problem with the second point is that Floo's statement applies there to mean that if Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means then he wasn't truly dead. This seems to argue against your idea that it's not an NTS because he was truly dead.
ETA Perhaps it will help if I phrase the idea as follows. If the statement is no one who comes back from the dead can gave be truly dead, then it is saying no matter what tests agreed beforehand to establish death are, if something is then alive after that, the tests will not be accepted. It's a circular argument arising from a redefining of what dead means.
-
On the first point, it's still a redefinition if they normal characteristics are just rejected as no longer meaning 'truly' dead. Let's imagine that Frankenstein was true, then corpses that were truly dead by all judgements up to then are capable of revivification. That then becomes a redefinition.
The problem with the second point is that Floo's statement applies there to mean that if Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means then he wasn't truly dead. This seems to argue against your idea that it's not an NTS because he was truly dead.
ETA Perhaps it will help if I phrase the idea as follows. If the statement is no one who comes back from the dead can gave be truly dead, then it is saying no matter what tests agreed beforehand to establish death are, if something is then alive after that, the tests will not be accepted. It's a circular argument arising from a redefining of what dead means.
So how do you define dead?
-
So how do you define dead?
Depends on how one defines life which is not an easy thing to do. But have a look at the Problem of Definition in the wiki entry below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death
At base though on your position it doesn't matter how death is defined because you will reject all agreed definition if something revivifies.
-
My definition of death is complete cessation of life, which cannot be reactivated.
-
My definition of death is complete cessation of life, which cannot be reactivated.
As noted that makes it dependent on how you define life. See the lunk for some of the issues on that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
-
As noted that makes it dependent on how you define life. See the lunk for some of the issues on that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
I have said it before and I will say it again, you and my husband have so much in common. ::)
-
As noted that makes it dependent on how you define life. See the lunk for some of the issues on that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Two parts of the Trinity remained alive - Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus was of course God the Son (before he was the Son of God). Was the Trinity really broken at the Incarnation, or was Jesus still God the Son (kenosis* notwithstanding)? Was the Trinity broken even more at Jesus' 'death'? L'esprit se boggle (and that's mine, not the Holy one)
*https://carm.org/kenosis
-
On the first point, it's still a redefinition if they normal characteristics are just rejected as no longer meaning 'truly' dead. Let's imagine that Frankenstein was true, then corpses that were truly dead by all judgements up to then are capable of revivification. That then becomes a redefinition.
But not an NTS.
The problem with the second point is that Floo's statement applies there to mean that if Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means then he wasn't truly dead.
Really?
This seems to argue against your idea that it's not an NTS because he was truly dead.
I don't see how if you look at the definition of an NTS.
ETA Perhaps it will help if I phrase the idea as follows. If the statement is no one who comes back from the dead can gave be truly dead, then it is saying no matter what tests agreed beforehand to establish death are, if something is then alive after that, the tests will not be accepted. It's a circular argument arising from a redefining of what dead means.
But not an NTS.
-
I see you are struggling with the the NTS. If the statement no true dead person can ever come back fro the dead, then that's it. It is part of logic. Your incredulity fallacy addition doesn't help.
Nope because what dead people do, as a matter of course, is not come back alive again.
-
Except the definition of death is exactly not clear
That makes it a bit difficult to claim NTS then
and has been the subject if much revision and confusion over time. It is generally a set of characteristics that we use, and what we would be saying here is that even given those characteristics being agreed with to start, should someone then be alive after showing those characteristics then they weren't 'truly' dead - and at that point you have your redefinition.
I would suggest though, the one of defining characteristics of death is that it is final and the main reason the other characteristics have changed over the years is because somebody has been classified as dead under those characteristics but subsequently been revived. For example, clinical death was defined by the heart and respiiration stopping. It was decided that clinical death was not enough when medicine began to be able to resuscitate such people.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sass, I know quite a number of liars and deceivers, who claim to be followers of Jesus, including people I have met on-line!
So you know writers of the gospels who post on-line? Who are both liars, deceivers and claim to be followers of Jesus?
So your comments are completely off-topic and have no bearing on the subject being discussed whatsoever.
I am sure there are many atheists who attend Church for family occasions and have no belief are doing the same.
You have to be careful when judging others that your own life isn't part of deception or lies like many atheist.
After all, I am sure you would never attend a church service and not mention yourself to have no belief or write something
which would show you did when you didn't , would you?
I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online. Did you actually have a point?
Because I see no connection to the gospel writers.
-
I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online.
Your personal incredulity knows no bounds.
-
So you know writers of the gospels who post on-line? Who are both liars, deceivers and claim to be followers of Jesus?
So your comments are completely off-topic and have no bearing on the subject being discussed whatsoever.
I am sure there are many atheists who attend Church for family occasions and have no belief are doing the same.
You have to be careful when judging others that your own life isn't part of deception or lies like many atheist.
After all, I am sure you would never attend a church service and not mention yourself to have no belief or write something
which would show you did when you didn't , would you?
I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online. Did you actually have a point?
Because I see no connection to the gospel writers.
Sass I am just gobsmacked by that comment of yours, you can't be serious! :o Some believers are the biggest liars of all time, especially when they state something is true and factual when it is a mere belief with no evidence to support it.
-
Sass I am just gobsmacked by that comment of yours, you can't be serious! :o Some believers are the biggest liars of all time, especially when they state something is true and factual when it is a mere belief with no evidence to support it.
You forgort the GOOJFC.
If they are liars then of course they cannot possibly be believers!
TRUE believers that is of course.
-
You forgort the GOOJFC.
If they are liars then of course they cannot possibly be believers!
TRUE believers that is of course.
In my 67 years on this planet many of the most unpleasant people I have come across have been extreme Christians. Lying and cheating on their partners, and their business dealings were less than honest too! Because they believed in the, 'once saved, always saved' stupidity, they reckoned they would go to heaven whatever they did. ::)
-
So you know writers of the gospels who post on-line? Who are both liars, deceivers and claim to be followers of Jesus?
So your comments are completely off-topic and have no bearing on the subject being discussed whatsoever.
I am sure there are many atheists who attend Church for family occasions and have no belief are doing the same.
You have to be careful when judging others that your own life isn't part of deception or lies like many atheist.
After all, I am sure you would never attend a church service and not mention yourself to have no belief or write something
which would show you did when you didn't , would you?
I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online. Did you actually have a point?
Because I see no connection to the gospel writers.
"I cannot imagine"
You manage to imagine everything in your manual is based on reality, what's the problem here Sass?
ippy
-
My definition of death is complete cessation of life, which cannot be reactivated.
Christians might see it differently though. They may see the physical body as a vehicle for 'life' , or as they like to call it, 'soul'. The body is dead when life is absent from it, but the soul goes marching on. The resurrection of the body could then be a return of the soul which then reanimates the body so that it is life bearing again, or alive.
-
Christians might see it differently though. They may see the physical body as a vehicle for 'life' , or as they like to call it, 'soul'. The body is dead when life is absent from it, but the soul goes marching on. The resurrection of the body could then be a return of the soul which then reanimates the body so that it is life bearing again, or alive.
They might see it that way, but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
-
They might see it that way, but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
That's why it is called a 'belief', not a 'truth'. 'Hope' is being open to the possibility and 'faith' is pursuing and persisting with a way or method to self validate a belief and realise it as a personal truth. Each individual then becomes responsible for finding their own 'evidence' rather than playing mind games with hypotheses. They would have to walk the walk, not talk the talk.
-
I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online.
You write plenty of stuff online that is untrue (I won't say "lie" because I believe your posts are sincere). Do you not count yourself as a believer?
-
In my 67 years on this planet many of the most unpleasant people I have come across have been extreme Christians. Lying and cheating on their partners, and their business dealings were less than honest too! Because they believed in the, 'once saved, always saved' stupidity, they reckoned they would go to heaven whatever they did. ::)
You've certainly known some unpleasant charlatans floo. Where d'you go to meet them?
-
Your personal incredulity knows no bounds.
I said TRUE believer. Even by your own logic to admit the true believer exists would mean that you would be admitting God exists
and all that which makes a believer true. Christ being the perfect example.
Sometimes you need to move past your limitations and think what it means to be a 'true believer' in the sense of the word defining a Christian.
Maybe it is your own inability to think beyond what you choose to believe.
-
In my 67 years on this planet many of the most unpleasant people I have come across have been extreme Christians. Lying and cheating on their partners, and their business dealings were less than honest too! Because they believed in the, 'once saved, always saved' stupidity, they reckoned they would go to heaven whatever they did. ::)
A Christian may fall but it does not make them worse than those unpleasant people who lie and cheat on their partners all the time.
Those who are always dishonest in their business dealings.
Your logic doesn't work. The truth is you are more likely to sin and do wrong than a believer.
One of your worst points is always insulting and putting down believers as above. Which is very unpleasant. But nevertheless does not stop you putting everyone who believes down. They don't do it to you but you are just the unbelieving equal to those in America who judge none believers. Both are as bad as each other. Christians are not here to judge the wicked God has set a day for that.
But sinners like yourself do nothing but berate others just because they are believers.
-
"I cannot imagine"
You manage to imagine everything in your manual is based on reality, what's the problem here Sass?
ippy
Gospel writers and the relevance please.
-
You write plenty of stuff online that is untrue (I won't say "lie" because I believe your posts are sincere). Do you not count yourself as a believer?
If you have evidence God does not exist and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God then show us.
But if you don't then you have no reason to judge what I say as untrue.
Now that is the truth isn't it. So why did you write the above?
Because you choose not to believe does not make what I believe any the less truth.