Debate with a Christian

[*Deidre*]

Hearsay accounts, no evidence. Not even historical evidence of Jesus' existence. The only thing that might have occured is that a man named Jesus, was crucified, as that was the typical execution style back during that time period. But, we don't know WHY. That is all hearsay. Jesus' birth, life and death...all hearsay. You can CHOOSE to believe this, but, that doesn't make it credible.

You believe something...incredible. Incredible, lacking proof that it happened. That is ok, but you should admit that, because we will just go round and round, you trying to prove God's existence and Jesus' life and death, and the two being One...using the Bible. And I will insist that the Bible isn't credible proof because of ....

Surely, you have to see the problem (by now) with trying to apply logic to your faith beliefs.

My faith is grounded in the historical Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ. I have evidence to support the truth claims I make regarding His existence, death, burial, and resurrection.

OTHER THAN the Bible, what is your proof? The Bible isn't a history text book.

I won't even get into why can't we use the Qur'an as a credible source for religious history? Jesus is not considered the Savior in that book.

Yet, Islam is a growing progressive faith, just like Christianity.

Do you see the problem in believing in hearsay? Islam is built on hearsay too. IT'S ALL HEARSAY, my brutha. :p

[discipulus]

"Has God raised Jesus from the dead?"

Please tell me you understand that, to us, this is equivalent to debating "was Darth Vader really Luke's father?"
Could it have happened? Sure, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
Did it really? Doubtful, since the account we have is fictional.

You take it to be fictional, I take it to be historical fact.

This is where we would debate the issue. Deidre has already said she would so I will let her.

[Mudhammam]

That's like asking if every event in Josephus' Histories, including the bit about flying chariots and a great sky battle, must be considered historically authentic in order to deduce anything else from his work as reliably accurate.

[discipulus]

OTHER THAN the Bible, what is your proof?

I have independent extra-biblical references at my disposal.

The Bible isn't a history text book.

The Bible is not a textbook at all. However, it is a compilation of works, many of which are historical in nature.

I won't even get into why can't we use the Qur'an as a credible source for religious history? Jesus is not considered the Savior in that book.

Yet, Islam is a growing progressive faith, just like Christianity.

Do you see the problem in believing in hearsay? Islam is built on hearsay too. IT'S ALL HEARSAY, my brutha. :p

We are not talking about Islam. To bring it up would be a red herring.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

The bibble is "historical" - REALLY? It's clearly a work of fantasy - for example, it claims repeatedly that its characters are hundreds of years old.

[pocaracas]

My faith is grounded in the historical Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ. I have evidence to support the truth claims I make regarding His existence, death, burial, and resurrection.

Why don't you present this evidence on a standard forum thread and have challenged by us all?
If it is that good, we'll have no choice but to accept it...and we'll all have to tell you that...
Can you imagine the smile on your face when that happens?

But do try to steer clear of WLC's arguments with the women... those are silly...

[The Valkyrie]

OTHER THAN the Bible, what is your proof?

I have independent extra-biblical references at my disposal.

The Bible isn't a history text book.

The Bible is not a textbook at all. However, it is a compilation of works, many of which are historical in nature.

I won't even get into why can't we use the Qur'an as a credible source for religious history? Jesus is not considered the Savior in that book.

Yet, Islam is a growing progressive faith, just like Christianity.

Do you see the problem in believing in hearsay? Islam is built on hearsay too. IT'S ALL HEARSAY, my brutha. :p

We are not talking about Islam. To bring it up would be a red herring.

And those references are?

[*Deidre*]

OTHER THAN the Bible, what is your proof?

I have independent extra-biblical references at my disposal.

Ok, I'm in. I have to see this.

The Bible isn't a history text book.

The Bible is not a textbook at all. However, it is a compilation of works, many of which are historical in nature.

Against a historical backdrop, yes. Places weren't made up. Some history can be genuinely found in the Bible. But, we are talking about the validity of the Bible as being a reliable account of evidence to prove God's existence, and anything having to do with the supernatural.

I won't even get into why can't we use the Qur'an as a credible source for religious history? Jesus is not considered the Savior in that book.

Yet, Islam is a growing progressive faith, just like Christianity.

Do you see the problem in believing in hearsay? Islam is built on hearsay too. IT'S ALL HEARSAY, my brutha. :p

We are not talking about Islam. To bring it up would be a red herring.

Islam refutes that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he was even crucifed. Islam refutes the very topic you wish to debate...butttt...I digress, as we will just go off topic then.

I have to get some things done, now, but begin your topic, and I'll do my best to debate you. :p

[discipulus]

The bibble is "historical" - REALLY? It's clearly a work of fantasy - for example, it claims repeatedly that its characters are hundreds of years old.

Would you like to debate the issue? You can be fourth in line if you like.

As far as I am aware, Genesis is the only book where you will find it stated repeatedly that people lived for hundreds of years. I may be wrong, but if I am right, then you need to rephrase your statement to read: The book of Genesis repeatedly claims etc. etc....

When stated this way, whatever argument you were trying to make kind of loses its power, seeing as how the rest of the sixty five books record humans living and dying essentially the same way we do today.

---

I have independent extra-biblical references at my disposal.

Ok, I'm in. I have to see this.

The Bible isn't a history text book.

The Bible is not a textbook at all. However, it is a compilation of works, many of which are historical in nature.

Against a historical backdrop, yes. Places weren't made up. Some history can be genuinely found in the Bible. But, we are talking about the validity of the Bible as being a reliable account of evidence to prove God's existence, and anything having to do with the supernatural.

I won't even get into why can't we use the Qur'an as a credible source for religious history? Jesus is not considered the Savior in that book.

Yet, Islam is a growing progressive faith, just like Christianity.

Do you see the problem in believing in hearsay? Islam is built on hearsay too. IT'S ALL HEARSAY, my brutha. :p

We are not talking about Islam. To bring it up would be a red herring.

Islam refutes that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he was even crucifed. Islam refutes the very topic you wish to debate...butttt...I digress, as we will just go off topic then.

I have to get some things done, now, but begin your topic, and I'll do my best to debate you. :p

No worries, we cannot begin until we contact the moderators over in the philosophy forum. Take a couple days rest and compile your material.

[*Deidre*]

The bibble is "historical" - REALLY? It's clearly a work of fantasy - for example, it claims repeatedly that its characters are hundreds of years old.

Would you like to debate the issue? You can be fourth in line if you like.

As far as I am aware, Genesis is the only book where you will find it stated that people lived for hundreds of years. I may be wrong, but if I am right, then you need to rephrase your statement to read: The book of Genesis repeatedly claims etc. etc....

When stated this way, whatever argument you were trying to make kind of loses its power, seeing as how the rest of the sixty five books record humans living and dying essentially the same way we do today.

Yes yes yes, and according to the Bible, mankind has only been living for oh....7000 years or so? (basing that on the lineage from Jesus to Adam) lol Charles Darwin, what a stinker. He fucked everything up for Bible believers. :p

Ok. I need to get some things done, I'll be around later to see if you erect a thread or whatever on the topic we decided on. :-) You starting a new thread? Or...?

---

The bibble is "historical" - REALLY? It's clearly a work of fantasy - for example, it claims repeatedly that its characters are hundreds of years old.

Would you like to debate the issue? You can be fourth in line if you like.

As far as I am aware, Genesis is the only book where you will find it stated repeatedly that people lived for hundreds of years. I may be wrong, but if I am right, then you need to rephrase your statement to read: The book of Genesis repeatedly claims etc. etc....

When stated this way, whatever argument you were trying to make kind of loses its power, seeing as how the rest of the sixty five books record humans living and dying essentially the same way we do today.

---

Ok, I'm in. I have to see this.



Against a historical backdrop, yes. Places weren't made up. Some history can be genuinely found in the Bible. But, we are talking about the validity of the Bible as being a reliable account of evidence to prove God's existence, and anything having to do with the supernatural.


Islam refutes that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he was even crucifed. Islam refutes the very topic you wish to debate...butttt...I digress, as we will just go off topic then.

I have to get some things done, now, but begin your topic, and I'll do my best to debate you. :p

No worries, we cannot begin until we contact the moderators over in the philosophy forum. Take a couple days rest and compile your material.

Wait. This is going to be an actual 'debate' thread in another section? Ok. I didn't realize we can do that, here. Cool. :=)