Protestantism

» Migisi - And...

In response to And... posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Okay. Whatever you say, Bri. If you're comfortable in your beliefs, I'm happy for you.
.
Real life beckons. See ya later...

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - And...

In response to And... posted by Migisi:

Sometimes there is pure co-incidence. Twas only the other day an argument ensued over whether or not the Pope could use the Royal Randwick Racecourse for the World Youth Rally. Now, there is a MAJOR horse flu crisis facing our country and the racecourse looks like it will be free after all.

Today's paper reports it as the Pope's prayers to God being answered.

-- posted by redback

» Migisi - And...

In response to And... posted by redback:
.
It's a MIRACLE!!
.
Today's paper reports it as the Pope's prayers to God being answered.
.
The Pope prayed the race horses would get the flu? Guess he doesn't like horses much, ay? (wink)

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - And...

In response to And... posted by Migisi:

Neigh...or is that nay? ABC

-- posted by redback

» redback - truth-in-waiting

In response to Natural v. Supernatural posted by BrianTubbs:

I think you and Pink are hitting the nutshells. I've been led to believe that truth without proof is not evidence. As surely as popular opinion doesn't make it truth, surely the 'reasonable person' standard is also not an option here either. Seems to me any leap of faith needed is relative to the length of the 'legs' and their strength.

I wonder if it requires a profound leap of faith or the simple walk to truth? And as Pink questions, what does one do with the answers. Depends on one's investment?

-- posted by redback

» Migisi - Faith Misconception

In response to Faith Misconception posted by BrianTubbs:
.
...then Christianity emerges as the most plausible of them all - based on the evidence.
.
What 'evidence'?
.
'Plausible' means -
1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious (which means "having a false look of truth or genuineness")
2: superficially pleasing or persuasive
3: appearing worthy of belief
(Merriam/Webster)
.
Like beauty, plausible is in the eye of the beholder.
.
However, the evidence will NOT take you all the way. You still must take a step of faith beyond the evidence.
.
Again, what 'evidence'? You've referred to 'evidence' three times in just this one post. The 'evidence' can't take anyone anywhere, because none exists. You've admitted that you have no proof that Jesus performed supernatural feats, yet you claim there's evidence that he did. Make up your mind.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Evidence

In response to Faith Misconception posted by Migisi:

Migisi, there IS evidence to support the central claims of Christianity. But in our continual debates, we've established that you don't accept that evidence. That's fine, but it doesn't mean the evidence isn't real. So, I will continue to state that the evidence exists, because it does.

Now, as to SPECIFIC evidence of Jesus' supernatural "signs and wonders," I agree - and have said so. There is no direct evidence to corroborate that Jesus turned water into wine, healed people of leprosy and other ailments, walked on water, etc., etc. The only exception is the resurrection. I would submit there IS some evidence for that.

And of course, abundant evidence that Jesus was a real, bona fide figure of history. But we've argued that point ad nausuem. Don't see any reason to continue that, since I think you're the only one here that challenges the fact that Jesus lived. Don't mean that as a kick in the shin. I'm just making the observation.

» Migisi - Evidence

In response to Evidence posted by BrianTubbs:
.
There is no direct evidence to corroborate that Jesus turned water into wine, healed people of leprosy and other ailments, walked on water, etc., etc. The only exception is the resurrection. I would submit there IS some evidence for that.
.
.
You agree there's no direct evidence for his miracles, despite the alleged eyewitness testimony found in the Gospels. Then you'd have to admit also that there's no direct evidence for his resurrection either, despite the alleged eyewitness testimony that he was seen post death.
.
But if you think you do have direct evidence of his resurrection, I'd love to see it.
.
I'd like to clear something up. Our past discussion about the existance of Jesus was generated soley by your claim that there was secular evidence of his life. The secular evidence you presented was soundly refuted by me as hearsay and interpolation. You then reverted back to the Gospels as evidence, which did not and does not meet the 'secular' criteria. While there is no secular evidence that Jesus existed, I personally still -believe- that a Jewish sage named Jesus did exist. Clear?

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Duplicate - Ignore

In response to Evidence posted by Migisi:
.
Duplicate. Ignore.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Clarification

In response to Evidence posted by Migisi:

I'll rephrase - there's no non-biblical, non-Christian evidence to establish Jesus' miracles as recorded in the Gospels. The exception to this is the Resurrection. The evidence for it is similar to the evidence for a black hole. The rapid growth of Christianity - a growth which begins in roughly the third century of Jewish Palestine - is strong evidence that something rather extraordinary (and I mean that word in its literal sense) took place. The resurrection fits.