(August 24, 2015 at 7:17 am)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]Do you know how many times I've explained to Baptists that Catholics don't worship Mary? [...]

Well, then - a lot of Baptists must know now, that you're full of sh*t.

Virgin Mary is literally worshipped in catholic countries in Europe. And I mean - actual "christian nations", like Poland - with over 90% of population being catholics, no attempts at legalizing gay marriage, and where Mary is frequently proclaimed by believers as "Queen of Poland". There are churches, shrines and other places of worship dedicated entirely to her. Maybe it's because polish catholics are more homophobic than you and are uncomfortable sucking Jesus' d*ck, so they chose to adorn a chick - who knows?

Nobody - including catholics - gives a f*** about your catechism. If catholics pray to the "Mother of God", place her at the centre of altars and the Vatican doesn't denounce it as heresy/idolatory, then yeah - catholics worship Mary.

(August 24, 2015 at 7:48 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 7:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I want to know what the "historical Jesus" said and did. Not the fairy tale one you can find in the gospels.
The same "historical Jesus" that Ehrman and others accept existed.

What does Ehrman say about the historical value of the gospels, poca?

I don't know... you're the one who's read what he's written. What does he say?

(August 24, 2015 at 7:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 7:48 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: What does Ehrman say about the historical value of the gospels, poca?

I don't know... you're the one who's read what he's written. What does he say?

"Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources. With this major comment in view, what can we say about the Gospels and their witness to the life of the historical Jesus?

"Once it is conceded that the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources, no different from other historical sources infused with their authors' biases, it starts to become clear why historians have almost universally agreed that whatever else one might say about him, Jesus of Nazareth lived in first-century Palestine and was crucified by the Prefect of Judea." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74-75)

(August 24, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 7:17 am)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]Do you know how many times I've explained to Baptists that Catholics don't worship Mary? [...]

Well, then - a lot of Baptists must know now, that you're full of sh*t.

Virgin Mary is literally worshipped in catholic countries in Europe. And I mean - actual "christian nations", like Poland - with over 90% of population being catholics, no attempts at legalizing gay marriage, and where Mary is frequently proclaimed by believers as "Queen of Poland". There are churches, shrines and other places of worship dedicated entirely to her. Maybe it's because polish catholics are more homophobic than you and are uncomfortable sucking Jesus' d*ck, so they chose to adorn a chick - who knows?

Nobody - including catholics - gives a f*** about your catechism. If catholics pray to the "Mother of God", place her at the centre of altars and the Vatican doesn't denounce it as heresy/idolatory, then yeah - catholics worship Mary.

Oh, well...since you put it that way...no.

(August 24, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Well, then - a lot of Baptists must know now, that you're full of sh*t.

Virgin Mary is literally worshipped in catholic countries in Europe. And I mean - actual "christian nations", like Poland - with over 90% of population being catholics, no attempts at legalizing gay marriage, and where Mary is frequently proclaimed by believers as "Queen of Poland". There are churches, shrines and other places of worship dedicated entirely to her. Maybe it's because polish catholics are more homophobic than you and are uncomfortable sucking Jesus' d*ck, so they chose to adorn a chick - who knows?

Nobody - including catholics - gives a f*** about your catechism. If catholics pray to the "Mother of God", place her at the centre of altars and the Vatican doesn't denounce it as heresy/idolatory, then yeah - catholics worship Mary.

Oh, well...since you put it that way...no.

No? That's it...Just no? Randy, I know you can do better than this.  I could explain this little 'misconception' if I cared to. You explained it to the Baptists.  So, why not break it down for these fine people?

(August 19, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'd like to provide an important explanation regarding the nature of evidence itself because I think there is much misunderstanding about what is and is not valid evidence for the claims of Christianity. As a starting point for this discussion, I'm going to quote from a an expert on the subject -- cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist who became a Christian as a result of his study of the evidence that many in this forum reject.

Wallace explains:

Quote:“Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies that he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.” This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something related to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.” The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step outside of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.

“Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.

“Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitle to any greater weight than the other.”

“Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly maligned over the years; it’s important to recognize that this form of evidence is not inferior in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are times when you can trust circumstantial evidence far more than you can trust direct evidence. Witnesses, for example, can lie or be mistaken about their observations; they must be evaluated before they can be trusted. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, cannot lie; it is what it is. You and I have the ability to assess and make inference from the circumstantial evidence using our own reasoning power to come to a conclusion. It’s not a coincidence that I was a non-believer before I learned anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth so that we can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the case for Christianity.” (J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 54-55, 66-67)

Since the day I first joined this forum, the demand for "evidence" has been one of the most common challenges put before me. J. Warner Wallace has provided an expert explanation of the nature of direct and indirect evidence.

Christians do have evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the resurrection. Like most historical evidence, it's indirect evidence and cannot be measured or repeated by science, but if there is "no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence", then atheists have some serious re-thinking to do.

(August 24, 2015 at 11:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Christians do have evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the resurrection. Like most historical evidence, it's indirect evidence and cannot be measured or repeated by science, but if there is "no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence", then atheists have some serious re-thinking to do.

I would encourage everyone to read the materials available from the ancient world, from the poets and philosophers to the historians and mystics, etc. I've spent the majority of my time this year reading literature beginning with ancient near east cultures, dating from the third millennium BC, passing through Homer and the presocratics to the Romans and now currently on the early Christian fathers. Your so-called circumstantial evidence is incredibly shallow. Out of curiosity, what other works from the ancient world have you familiarized yourself with to objectively evaluate the credibility and context in which your beloved apostle and his fellow ministers composed their theologies?

(August 25, 2015 at 12:15 am)Nestor Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 11:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Christians do have evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the resurrection. Like most historical evidence, it's indirect evidence and cannot be measured or repeated by science, but if there is "no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence", then atheists have some serious re-thinking to do.

I would encourage everyone to read the materials available from the ancient world, from the poets and philosophers to the historians and mystics, etc. I've spent the majority of my time this year reading literature beginning with ancient near east cultures, dating from the third millennium BC, passing through Homer and the presocratics to the Romans and now currently on the early Christian fathers. Your so-called circumstantial evidence is incredibly shallow. Out of curiosity, what other works from the ancient world have you familiarized yourself with to objectively evaluate the credibility and context in which your beloved apostle and his fellow ministers composed their theologies?

Ah...the college life. So much free time...so little responsibility. Enjoy it while it lasts, Nestor.

I'm happy to hear that you have been able to give the ancients a read and that you have now moved on to the ECF's. I have not been so fortunate, but I may be able to speak to your concerns somewhat.

Why do you say "so-called"? It IS evidence, and it IS indirect or circumstantial...so why the scare quotes?

Do you agree with the California judicial system that there is "no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence"?

What are you even considering as evidence for Christianity's claims? A brief list would be helpful here, if you could put something together.

And what, specifically, do you find "incredibly shallow"?

Well, Randy - maybe answer Nestor's question. What else - besides scripture - have you read coming from the ancient world? What's your personal base for comparison?

(August 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh, well...since you put it that way...no.

No? That's it...Just no? Randy, I know you can do better than this.  I could explain this little 'misconception' if I cared to. You explained it to the Baptists.  So, why not break it down for these fine people?

You can go ahead and take this one...I'm interested to see what you would say. Thanks!