(July 9, 2015 at 7:57 am)Randy Carson Wrote: It's just a reminder that there is a final exam at the end of the semester.  

There's no evidence of that. But don't worry, you won't be around to know you were wrong.  The dead simply aren't. 

Quote:No, not like any parent. I'm a parent too, and I didn't train him to be atheist. I didn't "teach" him what I thought to be true. I did answer his questions, without pulling any punches, just as his mother did. Just so you know, at that time his mother was Catholic.

I don't think it is wrong per se to teach your children what you think is true - We all indoctrinate children into something, and kids grow up seeing their parents as role models - Indoctrination is only applied when someone does not like/Agree with something, because if the person accusing others of indoctrination agrees with the teaching they'll change the label from "indoctrination" to "moderate teachings".

I believe parents shouldn't impose their ideas on kids - It shouldn't be against the law, but it is immoral - But everyone believes in something, whether it's a god, a higher purpose, an ideology, a set of morality or a simple hobby - And like any other parent, we all want to teach stuff to our kids. Because we live in a free society and since we can't all be right, the government shouldn't have a saying on who's more right when it comes to things like morality and religion (because of secularism) and so the only way to peacefully tolerate each other socially is to allow every person to believe and follow whichever principles they support.

(July 9, 2015 at 8:04 am)Neimenovic Wrote: How'd you know that?

Because a historically reliable NT tells me that Jesus existed, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. This suggests that his claim to be God was legit. If so, then EVERYTHING he said becomes extremely important, and one of the things he talked about was the final exam.

(July 9, 2015 at 9:41 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 7:57 am)Randy Carson Wrote: It's just a reminder that there is a final exam at the end of the semester.  

There's no evidence of that. But don't worry, you won't be around to know you were wrong.  The dead simply aren't. 

In which case, I have nothing to fear.

Basic Pascal's Wager, Jenny.

(July 9, 2015 at 9:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 8:04 am)Neimenovic Wrote: How'd you know that?

Because a historically reliable NT tells me that Jesus existed, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. This suggests that his claim to be God was legit. If so, then EVERYTHING he said becomes extremely important, and one of the things he talked about was the final exam.

Hi there, I was just perusing and saw this post. I'd be interested in knowing what you consider to be proof that the New Testament is historically accurate? Elementary question, I know. But if it's the entire basis of your belief, then it's quite crucial.

Welcome to AF by the way!

(July 9, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Luckie Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 9:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Because a historically reliable NT tells me that Jesus existed, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. This suggests that his claim to be God was legit. If so, then EVERYTHING he said becomes extremely important, and one of the things he talked about was the final exam.

Hi there, I was just perusing and saw this post. I'd be interested in knowing what you consider to be proof that the New Testament is historically accurate? Elementary question, I know. But if it's the entire basis of your belief, then it's quite crucial.

Welcome to AF by the way!

Thanks!

I have two threads which cover this material:

1. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
2. Proving the Resurrection by the Minimal Facts Approach

Thread 1 was my first real attempt at engaging atheists. The thread got bogged down in side issues, and I learned that I would have to take a different approach to interacting with the gang here.

Thread 2 is based upon the idea that it is NOT necessary to rely upon the NT in order to conclude that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the facts that are generally accepted by ALL scholars - skeptics and theists alike.

And btw, I have not claimed that the reliability of the NT is the "entire basis" for my faith. But, you have plans...so proceed.

(July 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 9:41 am)Jenny A Wrote: There's no evidence of that. But don't worry, you won't be around to know you were wrong.  The dead simply aren't. 

In which case, I have nothing to fear.

Basic Pascal's Wager, Jenny.

First of all it isn't as if the odds are 50/50 or as if following a religion didn't take time and usually money.  And in the case of Christianity, contradict some of my moral principles.

But which religion to choose?

Quote:I have two threads which cover this material:

And neither provides any evidence beyond Randy's willingness to accept fairy tales in lieu of facts.

(July 9, 2015 at 10:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In which case, I have nothing to fear.

Basic Pascal's Wager, Jenny.

First of all it isn't as if the odds are 50/50 or as if following a religion didn't take time and usually money.  And in the case of Christianity, contradict some of my moral principles.

That last part is the most interesting...which of your moral principles does Christianity violate?

(July 9, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Luckie Wrote: Hi there, I was just perusing and saw this post. I'd be interested in knowing what you consider to be proof that the New Testament is historically accurate? Elementary question, I know. But if it's the entire basis of your belief, then it's quite crucial.

Welcome to AF by the way!

Thanks!

I have two threads which cover this material:

1. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
2. Proving the Resurrection by the Minimal Facts Approach

Thread 1 was my first real attempt at engaging atheists. The thread got bogged down in side issues, and I learned that I would have to take a different approach to interacting with the gang here.

Thread 2 is based upon the idea that it is NOT necessary to rely upon the NT in order to conclude that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the facts that are generally accepted by ALL scholars - skeptics and theists alike.

And btw, I have not claimed that the reliability of the NT is the "entire basis" for my faith. But, you have plans...so proceed.

Plans? Whose got plans? Between me and you, I'd say you're the one with the plans! I'm legitimately interested in you answering my question, but it seems you have homework for me to do before you'll even bother answering me. Honestly I'm a mod on vacation for medical reasons; I don't have it in me to go through two very long threads of banter. I'm asking you to simply place your cards on the table for me please and thank you. For instance if I asked you for historical proof of Jesus' existance, it should be easy peasy for you to give me a link to prove what you're saying is true. References and resources that back up your claim. I'd like to see them, truly I would. Can you just give me that, here in this thread? I'm only following a few threads at the moment because that's all I can keep up with. Historical proof of New Testament validity is one of my main interest topics. I'm not close minded--show me what you've got.