RE: Debate with a Christian
March 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm by *Deidre*.)
(March 6, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:No it doesn't.(March 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Evolution is true. The Genesis creation account is a myth.
Come at me, bro.
Even the Bible preaches evolution so that will be a short debate.
(March 6, 2014 at 8:06 pm)discipulus Wrote:(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I don't like that topic. And the reason is, because I don't care about it.
You say you do not care if God raised Jesus from the dead. Then you go on to say this:
(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: What I think is more relevant, and more 'interesting' to debate, would be a Christian (in this case, you) proving the validity of the Bible, and explaining why you see it as credible proof of God's (even Jesus') existence.
If I am arguing that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead at some point in the past (an actual historical event), then it follows that Jesus did exist and that this resurrection was a divine miracle which is evidence that He was who He claimed to be i.e The Son of God.
How could you not care about me arguing this?
(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Most everyone here doesn't believe in God or a god, to begin with, let alone that Jesus was raised from the dead, or that God did it, or that they're both one in the same, etc etc...
Soooo....I think my topic idea is more relevant, and interesting.
I think you misunderstand what the topic is about. Me defending my affirmation of the debate topic entails that I do all that you ask.
Do you understand that?
I will systematically start with defending the reliability of the gospel accounts and then from there deal with four historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which must be explained. I will argue that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation for these four historical facts.
So in presenting my case, I will be doing all that you ask me to do.
Or if you want to just have a debate on the reliability of the gospels we can do that.
The Bible is one entire book. Why are we 'starting' with the Gospels? The entire OT, if you believe it, is a foreshadowing of the NT. Yet, many Christians cherry pick this or that, as to what they believe out of the OT, I guess because God was a bad guy in that section of the book. But, when we get to the 'Gospels,' he becomes a man, and is now a kind compassionate benefactor of mankind.
Is God both a sadist, and also Jesus, a kind Savior to all? If so, how do you reconcile the two sections of the Bible, OT and NT?
Do you believe the Bible in its entirety, and if so...what is your proof that the Bible is a credible source of God's existence?
It all comes back to MY topic.
In other words, why do you wish to start with the Gospels?
**I'm wondering if an actual debate will ever ensue.