cvanwey
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
It's not goading if it's true.........
Right. So....................the antecedent consideration would be for the person who is actually engaging the OP to address the WHOLE of the OP and NOT just the last phrase that he/she happens to decide to focus on most.
Did you even read post #36? It says quite a lot. I even asked if you could identify what 'truth assignment function' I am employing.
Furthermore, Apologetics ISN'T and SHOULDN'T be seen as being simply on the defensive and having to only offer answers. A defense can also incorporate bilateral questioning........................or didn't you know that?
Did you even read post #36? It says quite a lot. I even asked if you could identify what 'truth assignment function' I am employing.
MOREOVER, just like there is more than one conception of "the Truth" or more than one type of Logic, there is also more than one approach to Christian Apologetics. People should learn this fact.*
Sure, but like I stated in post #36, let's cut to the 'meat and potatoes'. I laid my cards upon the table, to demonstrate why I have concluded that I do not think Jesus rose from the dead. I trust [you] would agree that the answer is either He did or He did not rise, right???? When you reference 'the truth', such a claim is either fact or fiction.
Thus, I'm asking you again.... (i.e.) from post #36.... And please remember, you seem concerned about 'which' truth assignment mechanism one is using....
a. Which/what methodology am I using to analyze the claim of a resurrection?
b. Is this identified methodology flawed?
c. If so, why?
To prove I watched your 4 minute video:
1. interpretation
2. activity / branch of philosophy
3. perception
4. knowledge
5. fusion
etc etc etc..........
Okay, so?
Upvote
0