Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Special Pleading: When everyone else who ever claimed to be a Prophet (like, say Joseph Smith or David Koresh) or other "chosen one" (for whatever other woo-woo we're discussing), they were all false, and the people who believed them were idiots taken in by a charlatan...

...but not Paul! He did miracles! He's not like those other charlatans that other people believed, in all those other religions I don't agree with!

This is not an example of special pleading
This is an example of a apples to oranges compareson... again Koresh and Smith RAN when challenged with their beliefs, Paul endured, Paul faced his accusors in what ever offical public forum they demanded so that he may present what he believed in full. Which is why he was beaten, bloodied and imprisioned so much.

When confronted Smith took his core believers and ran to a desolate part of utah so as to be able to practice his religion unchallenged.

Koresh also isolated himself in a desolate part of the country/texas, and when he was challenged rather than face public scrutiny he killed all of his followers and himself then burn everything so that we could never know what he truly believed...

Can you truly not see a difference their?

[GrandizerII]

Special Pleading: When everyone else who ever claimed to be a Prophet (like, say Joseph Smith or David Koresh) or other "chosen one" (for whatever other woo-woo we're discussing), they were all false, and the people who believed them were idiots taken in by a charlatan...

...but not Paul! He did miracles! He's not like those other charlatans that other people believed, in all those other religions I don't agree with!

This is not an example of special pleading
This is an example of a apples to oranges compareson... again Koresh and Smith RAN when challenged with their beliefs, Paul endured, Paul faced his accusors in what ever offical public forum they demanded so that he may present what he believed in full. Which is why he was beaten, bloodied and imprisioned so much.

When confronted Smith took his core believers and ran to a desolate part of utah so as to be able to practice his religion unchallenged.

Koresh also isolated himself in a desolate part of the country/texas, and when he was challenged rather than face public scrutiny he killed all of his followers and himself then burn everything so that we could never know what he truly believed...

Can you truly not see a difference their?

That you don't see it as special pleading. Joseph Smith was persecuted for his beliefs. Did you not know that?

[Drich]

(Let me restate more properly: there is no good evidence that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.)

1 we are not talking about the gospels...

2 lets turn to your video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLUF1leMF0


2:20 "she was only refering to the gospels"

3 (we are talking about the writtings of Paul which are confirmed.

2:30 Mr. gerrbles admits "Scholars say john was there"

2:35 then Mr.gerbbles says "but their were no confirmed eyewitnesses." as if his word somehow trumpsa reasoned conclusion from an expert on the subject.

2:40 he start to stack the deck against the book of matthew...

Now if this were a real conversation why didn't the supposed lady keep pressing John? why? because Matthew is the easy target and mr. gerrbles wants to legitmize his position and can't unless he first establishes himself as a expert or some sort of authority, and defeating this magical 'strawwoman' is his way of doing that.

I couldn't watch any more of this propaganda, it is designed to feed on the weak among you and tickle your ears/tell you what you want to hear rather than be challenged by truth.

[Drich]

This is not an example of special pleading
This is an example of a apples to oranges compareson... again Koresh and Smith RAN when challenged with their beliefs, Paul endured, Paul faced his accusors in what ever offical public forum they demanded so that he may present what he believed in full. Which is why he was beaten, bloodied and imprisioned so much.

When confronted Smith took his core believers and ran to a desolate part of utah so as to be able to practice his religion unchallenged.

Koresh also isolated himself in a desolate part of the country/texas, and when he was challenged rather than face public scrutiny he killed all of his followers and himself then burn everything so that we could never know what he truly believed...

Can you truly not see a difference their?

That you don't see it as special pleading. Joseph Smith was persecuted for his beliefs. Did you not know that?

Again no. Smith ran from persecution. To be persecuted is to remain solvent, to face your oppressors, to endure as Paul did, and not run from your home in arkansas to a remote part of the country so you can brain wash unchallenged.

Paul took on all challengers, Smith ran from them. You can't be persecuted if you are not there to face an oppressor.

[GrandizerII]

That you don't see it as special pleading. Joseph Smith was persecuted for his beliefs. Did you not know that?

Again no. Smith ran from persecution. To be persecuted is to remain solvent, to face your oppressors, to endure as Paul did, and not run from your home in arkansas to a remote part of the country so you can brain wash unchallenged.

Paul took on all challengers, Smith ran from them. You can be persecuted if you are not there.

Bullshit. The Mormons say he was persecuted and died for the faith. It was Paul who avoided execution. That's why nowhere in the Bible does it say he died for the faith.

[Drich]

Chapter 3 anyone?

[GrandizerII]

Chapter 3 anyone?

People here seem more interested in discussing the reliability of what Paul said rather than what he meant. You should've noticed this by now.

[RoadRunner79]

I wasn't that familiar with early LDS church history, so I looked up the death of Joseph Smith. I'm sure there was persecution, but it was not all one sided, and their is reasons why Mormons where driven out of states. In any case, it seems inaccurate, to say that Smith died because he believed himself a prophet.

[Minimalist]

Yes, more properly it should be said that Eusebius "said" that "Papias" said....which is hearsay at best and fraud at worst.  Enough to fool shitheads like Drippy, though.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Do you mean the evidence that scientist observe and tell me about?   If you discount observation and testimony as evidence, then I don't believe that science has any evidence either.  There are a great number of things in science, that I have to rely on the observation and accounting of others as evidence.  And while a subjective judgment some of them may be found difficult to believe.  

So I would feel equally justified in saying that there is no evidence for evolution if you are able to use this method to say the same of Christianity.  I don't believe this is correct.  Now if you have actual evidence against or reasons to believe it is untrue, we can discuss it. Even bad evidence is still evidence. And if you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you to support it.

You might feel justified in saying that, but you'd be wrong. The difference is that you'd be dismissing actual physical evidence as if it isn't there (even though it is), whereas I'm dismissing your evidence because it isn't really evidence.


I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to make it seem as if theists and skeptics have the same level of/are using the same type of evidence. You've been told that personal experience and testimony are not valid forms of evidence, so you're trying to find a way to make it seem as if science is using personal experience and testimony as its only form of evidence.


This is patently false. Virtually the only thing that matters to science is evidence in the form of empirical data. Evidence by definition can be shown to someone else. If you can't show it, you don't know it. If a scientist tells you something is most likely true, it's because he actually knows a way to show you that it's true. Either he can take you to a piece of material evidence that demonstrates his point, and/or he can carry out a process that demonstrates his point, and/or he can give you enough information that you can duplicate his findings and observe them for yourself. No part of that involves anything so unreliable as eyewitness perception/memory or personal intuition.