looking for an intilectual sparing partner

[pocaracas]

Hey everybody,

Hey... I saw you on some other thread! Welcome aboard!!

not looking to be too invlolved here in the community at large.

After all the trouble of registering and writing this intro thread... why?!

But i am hoping to find maybe one or two people i can engage with regularly who is intilectualy honest, and can help develop my thesis for future evangilism.

oh... you're looking for one or two hand-picked people who you can finely-tune your evangelist prose with...
meh...
That's not what the forum is for...

I understand some of you may find that counter productive to your assertion there isn't a god.

Ahh..... no.... you may have a definition wrong there, buddy.
I'm sure others have pointed it out to you, so... I'm not going to waste my keyboard on that.

However iron sharpens iron, and i'm sure we both have somthing to learn from eachother.

You seem to need to learn some better typing skills.
I'm
something
each other

Brought to you by the Portuguese grammar nazi!

Now, i'll get on with a quick run down of my belief foundation. Please start with an introduction of yourself via PM and i will discuss the progress of my thesis and some of the trouble i have encountered. Thanks!

PM?! whut?! no.... PM is for some private interaction with other members... proper discussion is on the open forum, dude! that's where we can all participate and give you the most iron to sharpen your "iron"...
If the past is any indication, we're using stainless steel on copper.... the end result is a mangled mess, but oh well...

my belief in Jesus Christ being God in the flesh has to do with how unuiqe he was as a historcal figure, with refurence to non-biblical records as well. The remarkable historicity of the bible. Reliability of translation , from both scholars and the dead sea scrolls. Multiple accounts of prohpetic fullfilment, scientific and otherwise. And generaly harboring more reason and consistency than the proposed contrary of a godless un-governed universe offers.

oooohhhhh this ought to be good!
"Dead sea scrolls" made my eye twinkle...

That reference of Jesus in non-biblical records is a bit less...hmmmm accurate. Surely, there are many references to christians and the christ that they describe.... that just means you're getting a circular description - religion informs people who then inform the "secular" writings, which then inform you about the religion that started it all.
I wouldn't trust that methodology... but hey, you do your thing!

[chimp3]

Soldat du Christ : I hope you find the intellectual sparring not intilectually sparing.

[Pat Mustard]

Hey everybody, not looking to be too invlolved here in the community at large. But i am hoping to find maybe one or two people i can engage with regularly who is intilectualy honest, and can help develop my thesis for future evangilism.

I understand some of you may find that counter productive to your assertion there isn't a god. However iron sharpens iron, and i'm sure we both have somthing to learn from eachother.

Now, i'll get on with a quick run down of my belief foundation. Please start with an introduction of yourself via PM and i will discuss the progress of my thesis and some of the trouble i have encountered. Thanks!

my belief in Jesus Christ being God in the flesh has to do with how unuiqe he was as a historcal figure, with refurence to non-biblical records as well. The remarkable historicity of the bible. Reliability of translation , from both scholars and the dead sea scrolls. Multiple accounts of prohpetic fullfilment, scientific and otherwise. And generaly harboring more reason and consistency than the proposed contrary of a godless un-governed universe offers.

1) Atheism isn't an assertion it's the null hypothesis. When there is no evidence for an entity it is better to assume said entity doesn't exist. And currently the evidence for god is at the same level for invisible pink tazzycorns (I should know, I'm an expert on tazzycorns).
2) You'd better rethink Yeshua as a historical figure. First of all the bible description is clearly of a legedary figure, so a HY would likely be radically different. Secondly, there is no independent evidence for his existence outside of the third hand hearsay in the bible, which was clearly written by people who didn't know or understand early Principate Iudaea.
3) No prophesies were fulfilled even by a literalist reading of the bible. The "virgin birth" a misreading of a promise in Isiah to a king seven hundred years dead, the sacking of the temple prophesy was written after the temple was sackef, revelations has no basis in reality (mainly because it was written by a man who after starving himself for a week and then dined on magic mushrooms).
4) Your "reason" solely consists of the irrational belief that because you want god to exist he must therefore exist. The universe does not care if you think its existence needs rationalising, it does not care that you think a bronze age myth is needed to exist for it to exist, it simply does not care.

[Pat Mustard]

Hope your reasoning is better than your spelling.

His reasoning couldn't be any worse than yours, Wooters. Oh and I like the massively inflated hubris that can have you calling yourself a scholar, because everything you've said on this forum indicates that your ideas are the opposite of scholasitcism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

.RE: looking for an intilectual sparing partner

Sorry, I am constrained to only spar with intellectual sparing partners

Can they spare an "R"?