In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[Sheldon]

No, you clearly clipped a tiny part of a question, to remove the context, and evade answering what I'd actually asked. No big deal, I mean I am holding a loaded deck, as you're trying to defend erroneous claims that are at odds with scientific facts, and pretending that science validates them. 

Bottom line, a young earth is as compelling as a flat earth, and for the same reason.

Yes and I'll continue to parse your questions 

Of course, to remove the context and create straw men. I had no expectations of you suddenly displaying any integrity in your apologetics John, relax.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Notice how you just clipped a portion of my response, and it still remains a coherent phrase? That's because my sentences are all well constructed and each thought builds upon the next.

You, on the other hand, panic because unloading your loaded questions makes them lose their power.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, you clearly clipped a tiny part of a question...

Yes and I'll continue to parse your questions as long as you keep stacking multiple premises and conditionals inside them.

I gather then that you're unable to consider multivariate points. Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

Yeah, that's the problem. The context shades the meaning. So if you load the context with premises I don't agree with, like that it's all magic, then I have to ignore those conditionals if I'm going to answer at all.

[Nay_Sayer]

[The Grand Nudger]

Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

Yeah, that's the problem. The context shades the meaning. So if you load the context with premises I don't agree with, like that it's all magic, then I have to ignore those conditionals if I'm going to answer at all.

You dislike the word, but you strongly believe in the content.  It is all magic.  You live in a world full of it.  God-breathed, no less.  Now...there are people in the world who can discuss the magic they believe in without shame or obfuscation.  I absolutely guarantee you that everyone here knows that you mean something like "I don't believe in the wrong/bad magic" without you ever even needing to register the complaint.

Personally, I find open and confident belief refreshing, and even charming...though I obviously don't agree with it's content by any name.   Whatever this has been, is a terrible waste, in context.

[Sheldon]

Notice how you just clipped a portion of my response, 

Yes of course, did you imagine that reciprocity was unintentional?

Tell us again about your degree in psychology...

[Sheldon]

Yes and I'll continue to parse your questions as long as you keep stacking multiple premises and conditionals inside them.

I gather then that you're unable to consider multivariate points. Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

Oh good, I wasn't just imagining that then. 

[Sheldon]

Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

 The context shades the meaning. 

When you dishonestly remove it all, yes, which is rather the point. How long did you think I'd put up with it John, and not reciprocate. 

Sorry, that's rhetorical...

I imagine a good psychologist would have grasped this?

[Sheldon]

Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

 like that it's all magic, then I have to ignore those conditionals 

Ah, then your claims have some far reaching explanatory powers? Or are you just sulking, because you know you've been indoctrinated into an archaic superstition, and your education is not going to help you deny scientific facts, like the age of the earth, against the Genesis creation myth in the bible?

I did you the courtesy of putting a question mark at the end there. 

Now, what stopped the earth careering through space, without the sun's gravity to hold in orbit? Indeed, how did it form without the simultaneous formation of that sun, and its gravity?

Do take your time, as I am an uneducated dullard, as you know. 

Also how do photons, without our sun, or any star in the entire universe, according to Genesis, heat up and light a planet sufficiently for vegetation to survive, yet fail to do the same for planets (I will spell this out for you, again) that have a massive star emitting a massively larger amount of photons?

Oh and John, if you dishonestly clip a straw man question again, then I will be more than happy to reciprocate. You pays your money, and you takes your choice...