(July 26, 2014 at 6:08 am)Esquilax Wrote: Each claim can actually be approached on its own, and just because resurrections and virgin births are consistent with a worldview featuring magic, doesn't mean there is reasonable justification for bolting those claims onto the initial magic claim.I'm not exactly in the business of defending the occurrence of the events in the New Testament.
I'm just saying that it would not be outright false for somebody to claim that a supernatural being caused supernatural events at one point in history. Of course, it wouldn't be necessarily true, either.
Quote:Given the actual words stated in the bible... yes, division was on Jesus' agenda.What's going to happen is that I'm going to ask you for an instance where Jesus advocated for division (which is conveniently located earlier in this thread), and I'm going to tell you that Jesus was simply stating the inevitable things that happen when you adopt the teachings of a heretical Jewish rabbi.
But if you can provide an instance where Jesus said that he liked the fact that people hated each other on his account, or that he went out of his way to make someone angry in a manner that did not involve preaching, then you have a case.
Quote:So is the pope infallible or not? Your position seems to be that he turns it on and off like a tap, but how the hell does that work?The pope is not infallible in all areas of life. He is only infallible in the area of declaring official church doctrine, which is a pretty good place to be infallible in if you represent Christ on earth.
For instance, your chess-playing skills could be average, but when it comes to flipping hamburgers, your the one everyone depends on because that is your territory.
