Search results

Christian Logic Most Christians think in circles. Here's an example i see all the time: Devout Christian: God exists! The Heretic: You for real? How do you know that? Devout Christian: Cuz the Bible says so. The Heretic: Okay... But that only shifts the goalposts. How do you know the...

Two can play this game of condescension Is that your opinion as well? Thank you for playing the relativist card! :laugh2: A wickedly double-edged sword, is it not?

Agreed, but I am not putting forth a dichotomy. The phrase merely demonstrates the superiority of action over prayer, when directly comparing both. Next!

The hands that help are far better than the lips that pray.

Yes, the assumption of common knowledge is not backed up by any evidence besides the efforts of apologists who heroically stretch every possible evidence to support their religious beliefs. I originally wrote the OP for deaf madness, but since their administrator and I had a falling-out, I...

A glutton for punishment What facts? All I see is character assassination. Please provide a direct quote. Well, perhaps you are using the wrong word, “facts.” Even if a textual critic does not subscribe to your version of Christianity, that doesn’t necessarily make him an “unbeliever.” And...

Weak. You keep slandering them as "unbelievers." I don't see anything that supports that slander. I know this is a waste of time, but let me ask you something: which is the superior greek new testament, the "textus receptus" or the critical text of westcott and hort? and why? (Note: you...

What is WH? And what is the TR? More importantly, why are you using abbreviations? At any case, this is still a sweeping generalization that doesn't seem true. Not all textual critics are unbelievers or necessarily hostile to Christianity. Plus you will need to back up that claim by...

The great Liza has spoken! Excellent book! But I must warn you that Dan Brown stole almost everything from the Holy Blood book without really crediting the source. Shoddy scholarship. And I myself am even more skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I think you should open a new thread and we...

First things first. I'd be more than happy to answer your questions, if and only if you actually answer mine first. If your memory isn't working, go to my first post to you earlier in this thread.

que sera sera.... Crazymanw00t, it's painfully obvious Askjo doesn't have the answers. Otherwise he would have given you the verses without any trouble. All these tactics clearly demonstrate Askjo's inability to answer questions without feeling the need to control the conversation. :roll...

a disingenuous tactic of christians Codger seems to be confusing causation with correlation in his failed attempts to link christianity with civil behavior in the real world.

Is it criminal to be a dogmatist? Wrong again, askjo. Perhaps you have difficulty with English, because you are having problems reading what i wrote and understanding what i mean. Let's go through this step-by-step, just to explain to you what is factual and what you're wrong on. 1...

:confused: That's still false. You can be a liberal and still be a Christian. You can't just go around and calling people who aren't members of your (pre-defined Christian) group as lying bastards.

Netrox, your post, while commendable, is nearly indistinguishable from the attached emoticon. There's no reasoning with a dogmatist.

The cat's out of the bag In a nutshell, Bruce Metzger isn't an unbeliever, despite askjo's best efforts, for he is an eminent theologian. Metzger is a George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at the Princeton Theological Seminary, and he serves on the board of the...

An Ad hominem by any other name is still fallacious That would remain a fallacious argument, because the claim is not being discussed, but the character of the person making the claim. Plus you will have to explain what is an "unbiased" manner. If that's not possible, then there's no way to...

Congradulations! Probably the most intelligent thing you've said, to date. :)

textual critics get no respect Again, that's still irrelevant. You seem to be saying this: Unbeliever said X. Everything unbelievers say is false. Therefore, X must be false. This is a fallacy that doesn't actually address the truth of X. No if, and, or but about it.

Proof argumentum ad hominems never go out of style That's rather irrelevant, Askjo, whether Metzger is an unbeliever or a hippie or a patriotic American, or... If you think you can judge the truth of a claim by looking at the person who makes them, then you are engaging in fallacious...