Search results

1 Cor. 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. Rom. 11:20 Quite right, they were broken off for...

I'm sorry, couldn't resist :P

The existence of pink unicorns is possible, but unlikely. I have no reason to believe they exist, and even if they do, it's quite insignificant to me.

I challenge you to prove this statement. Ample evideces should make it very easy. However, some vague similarities isn't enough. You must be able to show: 1. That the similarities between Jesus, as portrayed in the NT, and the other relevant Savior-gods are very numerous, very 'striking'...

So only genuine scholarship is naturalistic one. Nice. :thumbsup: One messianic pretender among the others, ending his life pitely at the cross... who cares? Can you prove that all the pagan and Jewish witness about Jesus are tampered with? All! What a sad story. Really.:cry:

Not only we trust in our reason, but senses and memory also. In the word of Denis Alexander, "many scientists do not realise that they have to make a whole range of philosophical assumptions, assumptions not provable by science itself, before the scientific enterprise can get started. For...

You're kind of right. Oxford's dictionary defines faith as "complete trust or confidence; firm belief, esp. without logical proof." But doesn't we all have such beliefs? We believe, for example, that the human reason is reliable. It is assumption.

Have a good time, timmeh. And no hard feelings. :)

If we cannot trust the human mind, then we cannot trust the theist’s apprehension of theistic truths, from the Bible or otherwise! If we cannot, as Plantinga says, “presuppose that [our] faculties are reliable”, then we cannot presuppose that the theist’s faculties are reliable in apprehending...

Well, I do not see. Those posted by you are not actual contradictions. I must doubt your criticality now. You are uncritical of your sources, ready to accept freethinkers claims, and it seems you do not even believe there is any way to harmonize these co-called contradictory (without twisting...

If you are interested about the "argument from reason," I suggest to read this http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html

It does matter. Will you accept freethinkers' claims without criticism? Let me ask, why do you believe there are actual contradictions in the Bible? An odd question maybe, but let me know. I have also task to you: try to find a way to hamonize these contradictions (if possible).

@timmeh Thank you for the contradictions. I would like to ask now, where did you pick them up? Have you found them as a result of reading the Bible? Or where?

My pleasure. How we could trust in reason, if the intellectual abilities we have are developed merely through random mutation and natural selection, without any intelligent design. I guess we both agree that man is indeed rational being. But how this is possible without rational cause, i.e. God?

If the cause is not rational (and personal), there is no reason to assume we should be. We could not then, coherently, trust in our intellectual abilities. "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower...

Go back and read. There it is. But because you believe that science is objective it makes it so? Or? Maybe I need ask again. How does these "logical fallacies," "contradictions," and "factual inaccuracies" are related with the fallacies freethinkers exposes in my faith?

There is. I offered one. So all science, also naturalistic one, is pseudoscience then. er Who said I do believe there are not "factual historical errors" in the Bible?

The problem with naturalism is its basic assumption, that all beings and events in the universe are natural. There is no room for supernatural causes and effects. This assumption, then, is the starting point of the naturalistic science; not effect of it. We have, also, sound reason to believe...

The early Christians worshiped Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God.

There is no such thing as "neutral stance." It is an illusion. Still we need to seek objectivity, of course. I think ideological motif is not bad thing in itself.