Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Disagree all you want. Your posting history says it all.You are entitled to your view. I happen to disagree.
What does it say?Disagree all you want. Your posting history says it all.
It says that your role here is as a religious apologist.What does it say?
Why is it important?
What grounds do you use to support your claim?
I am a Christian apologist and that is one of my roles here.It says that your role here is as a religious apologist.
First, as you already know, apologetics is not permitted here, as per the forum's Statement of Purpose. Second, the thread title should be changed to reflect your participation as an apologist.I am a Christian apologist and that is one of my roles here.
Is that a bad thing? If so, why?
First, as you already know, apologetics is not permitted here, as per the forum's Statement of Purpose. Second, the thread title should be changed to reflect your participation as an apologist.
To the best of my understanding, the rules allow you to answer the questions I have posed, so you cannot rely on that as an excuse.First, if you think I have broken any rule, notify the proper person and let them make a decision.
Second, do not accuse me of ignoring you or being evasive if you ask me a question which the rules do not allow for me to answer.
Fair enough?
To the best of my understanding, the rules allow you to answer the questions I have posed, so you cannot rely on that as an excuse.
Strict adherence to the rules would indeed limit your apologetic activities, which would certainly be inconvenient for an apologist.
Thankfully then there are no atheists engaged in apologetics here.In addition, recognize too that the door swings both ways. Atheist apologists are also prohibited from engaging in apologetics here.
I don't know that eyewitness accounts are deeply flawed.
Archaeopteryx our forum monitor will have to approve that this post is not apologetic in nature before I respond to it. Then i will have to submit my response to him for review before he authorizes me to post it. I do not want to break any rules.Well modern research has consistently shown this over and over again. The reasons why are various...but well documented. The science is there if you're interested...if it's too much work for you, I'll even link you some materials.
It's unfortunate that a lot of the time, in researching history, eyewitness accounts are all we have. It's even less fortunate when we don't even have eyewitness accounts...such as in the case of Jesus. That's why I was asking if there was anything else you'd consider "good evidence"?
Is that your new excuse for evading questions?Archaeopteryx our forum monitor will have to approve that this post is not apologetic in nature before I respond to it. Then i will have to submit my response to him for review before he authorizes me to post it. I do not want to break any rules.
So maybe one day you will receive my reply.
I think we all set our own standard when it comes down to it.
What is generally accepted in practices where discovering truth is priority is a standard that happens to be generally accepted and it definitely is not your standard or criteria for as I said, it would eliminate much of what is considered historical by historians.
Because He accepts us when we do what we know is right, so The Word of God does not condemn us.
You didn't answer this question:
Is this effectively saying that you will make no effort to objectively verify the truth of statements found in the bible, because they are found in the bible?
If you use "yes" and "no" when it is appropriate, then it is easy for me to understand and I will accept it. This question requires only yes or no, and I did ask for some explanation why. Again though, you aren't answering for the purpose of me gaining the information I am asking for, you are answering to make your own point and ignoring my request for information. That really is rude.
You say legal procedures are designed to find the truth, but that the procedure prevents the consideration of a written testimony from a person if they are not available for cross-examination. Yet, if a person has deceased since their written testimony was made, and their testimony is useful for finding the truth, and especially if that testimony is crucial for finding the truth, then the procedure has actually prevented the truth from being considered and it is then not true to say that the procedure is designed to find the truth.
#973
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?