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

[kmortis]

I'm thinking a god would have protected him, if such a thing existed. This is evidence that the NT writers weren't telling the truth about any of the magical parts of the bible.

So...you're saying SPF60 then?

 

[John Jones]

Whether you agree with me or not, one has to seriously consider the fact that I have so much information to support my claims.

No. One must simply conclude that you like to claim that you have evidence.

 

[Lothian]

Yeah, at least a Buddhist wouldn't try to convince us that 10 many lashes would be "like a sunburn".

Fixed to reflect the text in question.

 

[kmortis]

No. One must simply conclude that you like to claim that you have evidence.

...and have none.

 

[mutile]

...and have none.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Belz...]

It does not make him impotent, it just means he wanted it to happen.

Alright, then. Either impotent or evil.

Your choice.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not always, anyway.

 

[mutile]

Alright, then. Either impotent or evil.

Your choice.

If it is my choice I would choose impotent.

 

[kmortis]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

While that can be true, there comes a point where there is a reasonable level of evidence that can be assumed to exist for a given phenemon. Where we're talking about textual verification, the total lack of supporting evidence speak volumes to the veracity of the text in question.

Now, has anyone seen my dragon? I left him in my garage with a teapot....

 

[mutile]

While that can be true, there comes a point where there is a reasonable level of evidence that can be assumed to exist for a given phenemon. Where we're talking about textual verification, the total lack of supporting evidence speak volumes to the veracity of the text in question.

Now, has anyone seen my dragon? I left him in my garage with a teapot....

If the phenomenon you are investigating is the existence of an impotent god you would not necessarily expect any evidence to be visible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If the phenomenon you are investigating is the existence of an impotent god you would not necessarily expect any evidence to be visible.

That would be indistinguishable from the evidence available if no god(s) existed.

 

[X]

If the phenomenon you are investigating is the existence of an invisible dragon you would not necessarily expect any evidence to be visible.

fixed that for you.

 

[mutile]

It might be just as true but it is a separate claim and would not be a fix for the quote that it was a direct reply to.

 

[carlitos]

I don't believe anyone ever answered my point as to whether they would rather receive 10 lashes or spend several years in jail.

Personally I rather receive 10 few lashes and be sore for a few days, kind of like a sunburn.

What you have posted here is so ignorant as to be obscene. Please go rent Roots, or maybe "Passion of the Christ" and count to 10 or whatever number would be "few" lashes (10 is probably fine, honestly). Hit pause. Inspect "sunburn" on the back of Kunta Kinte or Jesus or whatever movie you have. Boy oh boy, I see why they call you guys "apologists." Shame on you.

Have you ever heard of the term "in context". You totally ignore the brutal behavior of the servant immediately preceding Christ's statement. Why would he go through all the trouble of such a brutal story if he didn't mean it was for severe wrongdoing.

I keep asking about the second slave, and you keep bringing up the first. Why? This sentence stands on its own, after the first example:

...the one who knows nothing and does what deserves whipping will be beaten with few strokes.​

And in the last part of your statement you ignore that Christ said the servant would be punished to a lesser degree.

No God-dammit, it says he would be whipped with few strokes. That's what I keep asking you about. Jesus says it's ok to whip a mis-behaving slave, even if the guy doesn't know why. Jesus is a masochist? Cruel? What?

This happens all the time. If you have promiscuous sex and you didn't know it was wrong and you get a disease, you are being punished even though you didn't know it was wrong. IF you carry a firearm into a state park and didn't know it was illegal to do so, and then get a citation, you are being punished even though you didn't know it was wrong. But if you do it a second time (and thus knew it was wrong) your punishment will probably be worse.

Which of the above deserves lashes with a whip, DOC? Have you seen the examples posted of what a few lashes can do?

Please answer this question honestly:

doc, would you like to give me a whip and let me take ten lashes at you and see whether you would rather have that than a sunburn? And that's a question intended to see if you can think at all, not a threat.

I noticed you didn't list any of the posts I responded to when talking about post numbers so they would appear in context.

But actually the number of posts I have made (over 1900) is something to think about. Could a Scientologist legitimately defend their religion against 250 skeptics in a 326 page thread with 13,000 posts in it. How about a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or Jew. I know of no one in these religions that has defended their religion against hundreds of skeptics with cold facts for 20 pages much less 326.

​

And we also have statues of Zeus and Apollo, does that mean they existed. Having a image on a coin is no more proof that Caesar existed than having an image of a eagle holding 13 arrows in its claw is proof that there has ever been a eagle that has held 13 arrows.

You are completely losing it here. Caesar existed. He was the emperor of this place called "Rome." There is a lot of evidence for this. Your guy Yeshua bin Josef mentioned him in the bible, even.

Positively prove to us you were born in the city you think you were born in, President Obama can't even do that.

Of course I can prove what city I was born in. Where in the hell do you think President Obama was born?

 

[Lucian]

While that can be true, there comes a point where there is a reasonable level of evidence that can be assumed to exist for a given phenemon. Where we're talking about textual verification, the total lack of supporting evidence speak volumes to the veracity of the text in question.

Now, has anyone seen my dragon? I left him in my garage with a teapot....

Oh, that's funny--a dragon just knocked on my door. He wanted to know if I had any scones. Should I run after him and send him back your way? Wait, too late, he's flown off.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm inclined to accept that DOC is arguing for a God that is not omniscient. If there's one thing I've learned about God, it's that everyone is entitled to their own definition. A God that's doing the best he can, given he doesn't know everything, is a little more bearable than an omnimax God. Judging from the available evidence, if this God exists he has learned to stop interfering.

 

[Mister Earl]

This thread is fun! I'm going to try some 'DOC logic'!

I prayed to the Christian god, and my prayers were never answered.
So I prayed to Grrrsnap, malevolent deity of angry badgers. Since I have begun praying to Grrrsnap, I have since not been attacked by angry badgers.

Hence, there is more proof that Grrrsnap exists than does for the Christian God. QED.

 

[kmortis]

If the phenomenon you are investigating is the existence of an impotent god you would not necessarily expect any evidence to be visible.

Um...an impotent god.

Yeah.

I'm really on the look out for that.

Maybe he should get some Viagra?

Oh, that's funny--a dragon just knocked on my door. He wanted to know if I had any scones. Should I run after him and send him back your way? Wait, too late, he's flown off.

If he comes by again, let him know that it's safe to come home. I've fixed the TV so it won't do that any more.

 

[kmortis]

This thread is fun! I'm going to try some 'DOC logic'!

I prayed to the Christian god, and my prayers were never answered.
So I prayed to Grrrsnap, malevolent deity of angry badgers. Since I have begun praying to Grrrsnap, I have since not been attacked by angry badgers.

Hence, there is more proof that Grrrsnap exists than does for the Christian God. QED.

Well, that does it, I'm convinced. Who's with me? Off to the forest to pray to the Avatar of the Great Grrrsnap for meeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Aw, **** it, I'll just eat another scone while I wait for my dragon to come home. We're in the middle of a HALO tournament.

 

[Mister Earl]

You don't need to pray any special place for Grrrsnap. (Three Rs, thank you).
Grrrsnap despises all of his non-badger followers no matter where they are.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I noticed you didn't list any of the posts I responded to when talking about post numbers so they would appear in context.

But actually the number of posts I have made (over 1900) is something to think about. Could a Scientologist legitimately defend their religion against 250 skeptics in a 326 page thread with 13,000 posts in it. How about a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or Jew. I know of no one in these religions that has defended their religion against hundreds of skeptics with cold facts for 20 pages much less 326. Whether you agree with me or not, one has to seriously consider the fact that I have so much information to support my claims. Where are the followers of other religions supporting their beliefs with cold historical data against hundreds of skeptics?

Not only will you win your case against those evil purveyors of antithetical logic courses, the judge should award you millions in punitive damages after he sees the evidence in this thread.

Hey! This thread is evidence for something after all!