• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
temporalillusion said:
...On and on.

Not to mention that once again you make an appeal to popularity. If 1 million to Hinn is impressive, why aren't you impressed by 40 million Hindus gathering?
Click to expand...
Indeed!

Its not as though he's blazing a trail

Apostle St. Thomas in India
At the St. Thomas Day celebration in New Delhi on December 18, 1955, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then President of India, said: "St. Thomas came to India when many of the countries of Europe had not yet become Christian, and so those Indians who trace their Christianity to him have a longer history and a higher ancestry than that of Christians of many of the European countries."

<snip/>

This tradition is confirmed by the testimonies of many of the Fathers of the Church. It was not difficult for the Apostle to come to India, because extensive trade relations existed between Malabar and the Mediterranean countries even before the Christian Era. There is nothing to contradict this tradition.
Click to expand...

The would-be Portuguese missionaries were pissed off no end to discover the number of kids called Xavier running around Tamil Nadu and Kerela... but not so in Goa (?)


Alabama 3​
 
six7s said:
Indeed!

Its not as though he's blazing a trail

Apostle St. Thomas in India


At the St. Thomas Day celebration in New Delhi on December 18, 1955, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then President of India, said: "St. Thomas came to India when many of the countries of Europe had not yet become Christian, and so those Indians who trace their Christianity to him have a longer history and a higher ancestry than that of Christians of many of the European countries."

<snip/>

This tradition is confirmed by the testimonies of many of the Fathers of the Church. It was not difficult for the Apostle to come to India, because extensive trade relations existed between Malabar and the Mediterranean countries even before the Christian Era. There is nothing to contradict this tradition.
Click to expand...



The would-be Portuguese missionaries were pissed off no end to discover the number of kids called Xavier running around Tamil Nadu and Kerela... but not so in Goa (?)
Click to expand...

St. Thomas (also known as doubting Thomas) being a missionary in India begs the question -- What did Doubting Thomas see that made him quit doubting?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
St. Thomas (also known as doubting Thomas) being a missionary in India begs the question -- What did Doubting Thomas see that made him quit doubting?
Click to expand...
Ahhh... in place of reasoned discussion, another logical fallacy - and you get that skewed, as well

Begging the Question
Alias:
  • Circular Argument
  • Circulus in Probando
  • Petitio Principii
  • Vicious Circle
Etymology:

The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

Misrule of Thumb:

Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument.
Therefore, to beg the question is to argue fallaciously.
Click to expand...

Stop dodging DOC

Start thinking

It won't hurt
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
St. Thomas (also known as doubting Thomas) being a missionary in India begs the question -- What did Doubting Thomas see that made him quit doubting?
Click to expand...
The power that comes with leading a cult?
 
DOC said:
The leader of the early Christian Church (Peter) didn't do much hiding as he spent his last years in dangerous Rome. This is quite different from the Mormon growth amongst themselves in far off Utah.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2715707#post2715707
Click to expand...

A story, by the way, that we only know from the Acts of the Apostles and one that has been rejected by a number of scholars (by the way you should be happy, this was published by 'Orthodox press'; hardly atheistic propaganda).

I am not going to pretend that it is the majority opinion. We just have too little evidence to be reasonably sure one way or the other...
 
six7s said:
Just in case this has been overlooked....



If anyone else can reply (without resorting to woo), please do
Click to expand...

Simple. By the modern definitions he wasn't. He was born into the Episcopalian (nee Anglican) Church, became a Deist sometime before the time of the Continental Congress, then later a Unitarian via the influence of his friend, Joseph Priestly. Never really a [Pastor Deacon Fred]Biiiible Beleeevin' Christian[/PDF].

This does not mean that he was an atheist, though. He did believe in a Supreme Being, just that Being was something of an absentee landlord.

In case you really want to get into Jefferson's head, I recommend the Thomas Jefferson Hour, by Clay Jenkinson. It's an hour long, weekly podcast (which I think is broadcast live on a North Dakota public radio station). Jenkinson is a humanities scholar who portrays Jefferson, much like Hal does Hamilton.
 
I guess the place to start is by asking, what do you mean by a True McSaved Christian? The whole "born again" movement didn't really start until the 1960's or '70's, and doesn't really apply to much of the world outside of the USA. Are you referring to Protestantism?

The whole issue of who is/isn't saved means something different to pretty much every Christian, from the extreme emphasis on pure faith that you see from the Godbots like kurious kathy to an extreme emphasis on good deeds that some of Roadtoad's friends demonstrate. Although Catholics are right out as far as DOC and KK are concerned, would you consider them True McSaved Christians? Even Mother Theresa expressed doubts on divinity as can be seen in her recently published private notes.

If this was meant to be a serious question, please provide the definition you want me to use. If it was just a grandstanding move to make some sort of point about how all Christians must be irrational, well, um, OK.
 
Hokulele said:
I guess the place to start is by asking, what do you mean by a True McSaved Christian? ...Are you referring to Protestantism?
Click to expand...

Not specifically...

I have long regarded that the one, fundamental (as in basic) prereq for being a 'true christian' is accepting - literally - John 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life, with the way being the way to eternal salvation

Even Mother Theresa expressed doubts on divinity as can be seen in her recently published private notes.
Click to expand...
I did not know this

Thanks

If this was meant to be a serious question, please provide the definition you want me to use.
Click to expand...
It was, see above

If it was just a grandstanding move to make some sort of point about how all Christians must be irrational, well, um, OK.
Click to expand...
Who? Me? Pish!

There's no need to point out the inherent irrationality of christianity, here, again, is there?
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Not specifically...

I have long regarded that the one, fundamental (as in basic) prereq for being a 'true christian' is accepting - literally - John 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life, with the way being the way to eternal salvation
Click to expand...
Hooray, I am a true Christian. Of course, the interesting thing is how one interprets that verse. It doesn't say, for instance, that one needs to have faith in Jesus to come to the Father...


six7s said:
There's no need to point out the inherent irrationality of christianity, here, again, is there?
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm not completely convinced that it is inherently irrational. I am aware that what I think may occur in this world is not in accord with current scientific understandings, as in, I haven't ruled out the possibility of what people may call the miraculous. I have found my thinking to be influenced by people like Keith Ward, who show how it is possible to be a Christian and yet still think and integrate science into a worldview.

Indeed, if the Bible is a love letter, it sure comes from a bizarre place.
 
Mr Clingford said:
It doesn't say, for instance, that one needs to have faith in Jesus to come to the Father...
Click to expand...
If I was unaware of your sincere approach to this discussion, I would (sincerely) have thought that you were taking the piss...

Serious question:

How can the 'I AM' bit be inferred as anything other than an implicit requirement for faith?

Hmm, I'm not completely convinced that it is inherently irrational.
Click to expand...
Cool!

Please note that I have read the bible from cover to cover three times, I was raised in a devoutly christian family and community and, although I too once believed, I am at a loss to understand:
  1. why I should accept the Jesus of John 14:6 as my saviour
  2. what I need to be saved from

I look forward to a rational explanation

TYIA :)
 
six7s said:
If I was unaware of your sincere approach to this discussion, I would (sincerely) have thought that you were taking the piss...

Serious question:

How can the 'I AM' bit be inferred as anything other than an implicit requirement for faith?
Click to expand...
I am surprised that you think I might be taking the piss because that approach is a view I have heard espoused by Anglican Bishops and theologians, and as I think it, it must a valid approach! I really am taken aback that you think it is such an odd thing for a Xtian to say. I see the verse as referring to the mechanics of salvation - it is by all this incarnation business that the divine and material are reconciled (leaving aside somewhat what that all means for the mo!). The verse makes no mention of professing a faith.


six7s said:
Cool!

Please note that I have read the bible from cover to cover three times, I was raised in a devoutly christian family and community and, although I too once believed, I am at a loss to understand:
  1. why I should accept the Jesus of John 14:6 as my saviour
  2. what I need to be saved from

I look forward to a rational explanation

TYIA :)
Click to expand...
I too look forward to a rational explanation! Perhaps, saved from ourselves, to become the best Mr Clingford, best Six7s possible. Something like that. I don't have much in the way of answers, just ideas and the notion that fundamentalist literalist Xtianity is mistaken.

What type of Xtianity were you brought up in?

PS I also like Oak trees!
 
six7s said:
Not specifically...

I have long regarded that the one, fundamental (as in basic) prereq for being a 'true christian' is accepting - literally - John 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life, with the way being the way to eternal salvation
Click to expand...


Mmm, I can agree with you here, but I am not sure that means one has to believe in Jesus' divinity. I could see someone like Jefferson reading this much like the way Buddhists read the purported teachings of the Buddha. In other words, do as I do to earn salvation.

I did not know this
Click to expand...


There were a few threads on this in R&P when they were first published. Apparently she even questioned the existence of god. To me, it emphasized the whole dissonance between public thoughts and private ones, even in such high profile Christians.

Thanks

It was, see above
Click to expand...


Fairynuff. There are times when DOC's threads make it difficult for me to determine what is serious and what is play. :o

Who? Me? Pish!

There's no need to point out the inherent irrationality of christianity, here, again, is there?
Click to expand...


Heh. I will say, there are certainly some flavors that demonstrate far more irrationality than others. Kathy, I am looking at you.
 
Mr Clingford said:
... Perhaps, saved from ourselves, to become the best Mr Clingford, best Six7s possible. Something like that. ...
Click to expand...


I have heard similar ideas from others in the past (not just Christians). The only quibble I have with such a sentiment is that it requires some pretty limited ideas of what "best" might mean. Christian ideals do not always translate to other cultures and the heavy debate kicks in as to whether or not they should.
 
Hokulele said:
There were a few threads on this in R&P when they were first published. Apparently she even questioned the existence of god. To me, it emphasized the whole dissonance between public thoughts and private ones, even in such high profile Christians.
Click to expand...
I am someone who does not hide the fact that I have doubts and struggle with lots of things and I think that other Xtians find it helpful to hear someone say that. It is a great shme that Xtians can feel that they have to put on a front as it is the opposite of what Jesus seems to value. Someone who admits to doubts and issues with their faith goes up in my estimation.

Hokulele said:
I have heard similar ideas from others in the past (not just Christians). The only quibble I have with such a sentiment is that it requires some pretty limited ideas of what "best" might mean. Christian ideals do not always translate to other cultures and the heavy debate kicks in as to whether or not they should.
Click to expand...
Ok 'best' - honest with oneself, creative and selfless kind of stuff.
 
Mr Clingford said:
I am someone who does not hide the fact that I have doubts and struggle with lots of things and I think that other Xtians find it helpful to hear someone say that. It is a great shame that Xtians can feel that they have to put on a front as it is the opposite of what Jesus seems to value. Someone who admits to doubts and issues with their faith goes up in my estimation.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with you here. As I mentioned in that thread where I challenged kurious kathy directly, I strongly feel that I must be able to challenge anything I believe. Doubt is pretty much the central tenet of skepticism, no? Anyone who can honestly confront doubt is someone I can respect.

Ok 'best' - honest with oneself, creative and selfless kind of stuff.
Click to expand...


Agree, agree, slightly disagree. There is a point where selflessness can turn into self-defeat. I do think it is important to respect and care for all of humanity, but not if it risks my personal welfare or that of my family.
 
Hokulele said:
Agree, agree, slightly disagree. There is a point where selflessness can turn into self-defeat. I do think it is important to respect and care for all of humanity, but not if it risks my personal welfare or that of my family.
Click to expand...
Possibly I need to unpack selfless a bit more. I see selfless as incorporating something of that 'love your neighbour as yourself' - the aspect that one loves oneself can be lost by some Xtians, and that is unhealthy. I see selflessness opposed to things like greed, in contrast to relating to others for what you can get out of them (although that does not mean that if you enjoy someone's company you are being selfish!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom