RE: Stump the Christian?
June 7, 2015 at 10:53 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2015 at 11:00 am by Britney blue.)
(June 7, 2015 at 10:42 am)abaris Wrote:(June 7, 2015 at 10:36 am)Britney blue Wrote: You're right, it's that every once in a while I run into some really nasty trolls. I always keep in mind that I need to try to really really nice and use epistemology to get them to think. I do admit I need much refinement. Thank you for your replies.
But still, it only shows that you got no real arguments to present. And it misses the mark by a mile, since it doesn't even scratch their faith teflon armor.
I see where you're coming from; I would want to leave with them a lasting impression that would lead them to think about reason and logical arguments, hopefully, where as if I attack them even in defense of their replies they would remember this instead and this is not what I want. Thanx
(June 7, 2015 at 10:42 am)Randy Carson Wrote:No, but after talking about this I come to realize that I should be nice or not respond.(June 7, 2015 at 9:33 am)Britney blue Wrote: If stumping a Christian doesn't work just remind them that Jesus was a bastard...
Britney-
That's not a terribly effective point. Christians would be respond by pointing out that the Jews did not see it that way.
Mary and Joseph were married at the time he was born, and numerous passages of scripture indicate that Jesus was received into the community, the synagogues and the Temple. The Pharisees even called him "Rabbi". But the law of Moses forbids the admission of bastards:
Deuteronomy 23: 2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Jesus was accused of many things including blasphemy, but he was not accused of being a bastard.
It's also possible that a knowledgeable Christian might turn this around on you by saying:
Quote:Let's suppose for a moment that this accusation is true. The fact that this embarrassing detail was included in the gospels makes them more believable because the authors told the truth. This is just one of many examples of how the gospels prove themselves to be historically reliable: they meet the criterion of embarrassment.
So, doesn't this give you some reason to accept that what the gospels say might be true?