Really? You declare that 25 or 30 years is *not* enough time for myths to develop yet you don't hesitate to say that the "great historical accounts" are enough to hold up the extraordinary claims regarding Jesus? Which of the following 2 is more plausible: That 1) a myth about Jesus emerged after 25 years of storytelling or 2) that Jesus rose from the dead? Any hint of intellectual honesty would at least acknowledge the first scenario as being possible.
A man named Thomas was once a doubter also. Jesus will if your willing(being God He knows your willingness and your heart) give you the truth just as He did for doubting Thomas. Be believing rather than unbelieving.
Even if we accept Greg's early dating of Luke in the early 60s (a tenuous argument and not the consensus), that's plenty of time for who knows what to happen to the oral legend.
Why imagine that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?
And we're supposed to build the most incredible claim possible (God created everything) on speculation? Very tenuous, I'm afraid.
The most incredible claim is not that God created everything. The claim that everything we can detect popped up from nothing - or from something else that popped out from nothing - and that it all eventually will go back to nothing - for no rhyme or reason, without any objective purpose. Everything around us, our very lives, the so-called greatest show on earth, everything a big meaningless soup destined to vanish. That's the most incredible claim possible.
@MindTheHeart Who claims that everything popped up from nothing? Certainly not science.
As for objective purpose, I don't see any. If you do, I'll listen to your evidence. You are the one with the incredible claim. If there's objective purpose, show us.
If you demand a 100% water-tight proof, I can't help you. (I would be amazed if there is anyone at all who can provide any water-tight to proof to anything at all when it comes to the big questions of life.)
But here is what makes sense - at least to me: 1) That there is an objective meaning with this universe. 2) That the universe originates from a powerful and willful source which transcends our boundaries of time and space.
@MindTheHeart Not at all. I agree that "proof" is the wrong thing to ask for. I'm simply asking for an argument that shows that the predominance of evidence points in your direction.
You're saying that you sense (or prefer?) an objective meaning to the universe. OK, not a problem. But don't expect this to be a compelling argument for anyone else. I certainly don't see evidence for that.
@BobTheAtheist2 Science only works within the limits of space and time, and there is nothing in our universe which can provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. And you are right, the universe did not pop up from nothing, but it must originate from something outside the universe, and science is not capable of detecting it. Logic and philosophy can perhaps point us in the right direction, though.
The only thing that fits the two points I made, is some sort of deity or god.
Where did you get that from? I did not say that. There is absolutely no logic to that statement.
It sounds a bit funny if you twist what I say like that - and then continue saying that you have never heard a compelling argument [for God's existence].
Anyway, concerning objective meaning, wouldn't it be a huge blow our intellectual pride if our minds has no other function than evolutionary survival?
@MindTheHeart Good to hear that we reject that empty argument. From what you'd said, I couldn't extract anything more compelling.
No, I haven't heard a compelling argument for God's existence. Let me know what is most compelling to you.
I don't imagine much of a blow to our intellectual pride to imagine that our brains evolved for no deeper reason than just survival. That's what explains the facts best IMO.
I also strongly agree with Greg and Rabbiglenn comments below. The destruction of the temple blood sacrificial system would of been huge. it was the physical representation of the Mosaic law. their is a strong argument that the entire canon was written before AD70. it is interesting the book of Revelation does not mention destruction of the temple and actually has it still standing in chp. 11. maybe it is about the destruction of Israels world and not ours.....?
I agree. I also add 1 Cor 15:6, that most eyewitnesses are still alive . This would be too obvious a deceit if written late. I'm sharing the gospel today so this was quite timely. This person always says I just don't trust the bible but has no"authority" for her belief but her own 'feelings," a risky authority at best. i will use this early dating proof again to emphasize that the bible should be taken seriously.
Excellent and concise! Add to this evidence the omission of any mention of the destruction of the Temple (AD 70), which to Jewish writers and a Jewish audience would have been an historically pivotal event, and you have documents written much earlier than the critics would have us believe.
Written early, written late, who cares. That doesn't determine reliability when it comes to supernatural claims.
We have alleged eyewitness accounts of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster written within minutes of the sighting. So I take it you believe it exists? Yea, didn't think so.
@ivanisavich Were the eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness Monster willing to stand by their claims while they were tortured and killed? Maybe something to consider...
@davidandrewbrewer What evidence do you have that the apostles willingly died for their beliefs? How do you know they didn't recant but were killed anyways?
@ivanisavich Good question...but the answer requires too much to cover here. If you're interested, find clayjones' blog (sorry, I can't post the link) and read his post from Jan-2011 peter-and-paul-killed-for-proclaiming-jesus-rose/. You can see both sides of the argument in the comments section. Eventually, you need to weight the evidence for yourself.
@davidandrewbrewer My question was half rhetorical because I've already looked at the evidence and know the answer.
The stories about the martyrdom of the apostles, and how they stood by their faith to the last minute were invented by the church in the early first millennium to garner devotion and hope in extant followers. There are no reliable historical records that cite anything about the disciples willingly dying for their beliefs.
@ivanisavich Thanks for the exchange. Interesting how we both look at the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions. Could you direct me to your evidence that the church invented these stories to garner devotion and hope in extant followers? (By the way, I'm looking for reliable historical records on which you base your assertion.)
@davidandrewbrewer Well, you stated that the apostles willingly stood by their claims as they were tortured and killed (admittedly, a popular claim of the church from the second century and onwards). However, no reliable historical evidence exists that corroborates such a claim, so it follows that the claim is nothing but a legend. I guess it's somewhat ironic that Christians defend the mythical claims of Christianity with legendary claims of its church, and then wonder why we don't believe.
@albertlisty 1) Sufficient evidence. A bunch of tall tales written by people who were tremendously superstitious is not sufficient evidence to believe a claim that would turn our understanding of the universe on its head if true.
2) Not enough space in the youtube comments to type it out. Sorry.
3) Mythical/legendary are conclusions. I'm not defining the evidence as mythical. I'm saying the insufficiency of the evidence leads me to believe the claims are mythical.
1) Can you give me an example of Sufficient Evidence for an event outside of the bible that you believe actually happened? Preferably, something before photography, video or radio would be closer to the situation in the bible. Basically something that relied on words not pictures of any kind to demonstrate that it really happened.
I'm wanting to get an understanding of what you consider sufficient evidence as you have shown that you don't believe the words in the bible to be true.
@albertlisty Lacking means lacking. There is no historical evidence from anywhere except legends within the church that the apostles stood by their faith while they were tortured/killed, or even much evidence that they were tortured/killed at all.
As for a dictionary, pick one. Websters. There you go. "Myth" is not a complicated word to define. Don't make things harder than they have to be.
Wow... Stating that there is "NO historical evidence from ANYWHERE except legends within the church" isn't showing any examples that you have personally seen. It sounds more like a common statement that you have heard instead of actually looked into this for yourself.
What about providing an example of Sufficient Evidence for an event outside of the bible that you believe actually happened?
@albertlisty I have looked into it, as you clearly have not.
Or feel free to correct me. Go on...cite examples of historical records stating that the apostles affirmed their faith up until their death and right through their torture. As stated above, legends promoted by the church from the late 2nd century and onwards obviously do not count.
Can't wait to hear about all of these historical records I've been missing!
@albertlisty I have looked into it, as you clearly have not.
Or feel free to correct me. Go on...cite examples of historical records stating that the apostles affirmed their faith up until their death and right through their torture. As stated above, legends promoted by the church from the late 2nd century and onwards obviously do not count.
Can't wait to hear about all of these historical records I've been missing!
I haven't made a claim one way or the other. I haven't expressed to you in the least what I know or not so for you to say I clearly have not looked into it is not speaking from what you have read from me.
You made the claim that the historical data isn't enough to suffice for you to believe. So I wanted to ask you what would be enough evidence. I can't get you to tell me what that evidence would be. >>>continue on next post >>>
I can't get you to tell me what evidence would be enough for you to believe. It's obvious that the bible is not sufficient as you don't believe it to be historically accurate.
You continue to speak of legend and so on but when I ask you what about providing an example of Sufficient Evidence for an event outside of the bible that you believe actually happened, you avoid the question. Can you give me something from history that you do believe?
@albertlisty I love how you cannot provide ANY evidence for the claim in question (the apostles were tortured yet did not recant their faith), yet somehow put the onus on me to explain what sufficient evidence is.
NO evidence is certainly not sufficient evidence, no matter what the definition of "sufficient evidence" is.
@ivanisavich, It was your claim that there wasn't sufficient evidence so the onus should be on you to show that the evidence isn't sufficient. Saying its myths or legends isn't evidence, it's just a claim.
Giving you any evidence would be like throwing a rock over the wall and asking you if the rock is good enough. You'll just keep saying it's not, seeing how you just said that NO evidence is sufficient.
You have already made up your mind regardless of what is true or not.
@ivanisavich quick question....would you accept the evidence if @albertlisty gave it? or would you disregard it because it concludes something contrary to your beliefs?
@ivanisavich lol. ok, i get ya. Basically what I was asking when I asked you to define that was, "when you say consider, do you mean that you will really actually wrestle with the evidence and honestly deal with it as it comes or will you just hear the other person out knowing full well you are going to deny it no matter what the other position actually has to say?"
I do believe you have reason to deny it because if it were true, that means you have a standard of holiness that you ought to adhere to. do you want to adhere to a holy standard and give up your life and submit your life to Jesus? If not, then you do have a reason to deny it ought right. :P lol
@npotts89 I think you misread my last post. I said I do not have a reason to deny it outright.
Also, having a "standard of holiness" is irrelevant. I could make up a religion right now that requires you to follow a set of rigid rules and worship me. Would it be rational for me to say you deny that religion just because it has a standard of holiness? That you just deny its truth only because you're afraid to submit to me?
@ivanisavich hmm. I'm confused. I don't see how i misread it. I see that you said you have no reason to outright deny it. that is clear. what I was saying is that you claim you have no outright reason, claiming the "lack of evidence" Bertrand Russell approach. But what I am saying is that it doesn't matter how much evidence you are given, you would always interpret it as "i'll read it, but its wrong" approach. It is because of this standard of holiness that you interpret it as such and thus...
@ivanisavich ....you will not adhere to what the Scripture actually states.
as for your final comments, they are not needed and it is highly immature. if you want to be academic about this, you clearly do not show it. let's mature and have a civil conversation.
@npotts89 Yea, it is your mistake. In the future you might learn that people will be happier to discuss things with you when you're ready to drop the smug bullshit and stop telling them what you think their own motivations are for rejecting the Bible.
@ivanisavich I was saying that you proved my point because my point earlier was that it didn't matter what the opposing side said, you would neglect it. and it seems that you have done just that, you have cowered into immaturity...which is one I haven't seen often but I have seen it.
I'll be waiting for a mature response. I won't hold my breath.
@npotts89 I save my mature responses for those capable of understanding them. Not idiots who project their own intellectual ineptitude on their opponent by trying to tell them what their own intentions are.
"we have great historical accounts..."
Really? You declare that 25 or 30 years is *not* enough time for myths to develop yet you don't hesitate to say that the "great historical accounts" are enough to hold up the extraordinary claims regarding Jesus? Which of the following 2 is more plausible: That 1) a myth about Jesus emerged after 25 years of storytelling or 2) that Jesus rose from the dead? Any hint of intellectual honesty would at least acknowledge the first scenario as being possible.
jbass02 5 months ago
David,
A man named Thomas was once a doubter also. Jesus will if your willing(being God He knows your willingness and your heart) give you the truth just as He did for doubting Thomas. Be believing rather than unbelieving.
kdpsengine3 5 months ago
Even if we accept Greg's early dating of Luke in the early 60s (a tenuous argument and not the consensus), that's plenty of time for who knows what to happen to the oral legend.
Why imagine that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?
And we're supposed to build the most incredible claim possible (God created everything) on speculation? Very tenuous, I'm afraid.
BobTheAtheist2 5 months ago
Comment removed
MindTheHeart 5 months ago
@BobTheAtheist2
The most incredible claim is not that God created everything. The claim that everything we can detect popped up from nothing - or from something else that popped out from nothing - and that it all eventually will go back to nothing - for no rhyme or reason, without any objective purpose. Everything around us, our very lives, the so-called greatest show on earth, everything a big meaningless soup destined to vanish. That's the most incredible claim possible.
MindTheHeart 5 months ago
@MindTheHeart Who claims that everything popped up from nothing? Certainly not science.
As for objective purpose, I don't see any. If you do, I'll listen to your evidence. You are the one with the incredible claim. If there's objective purpose, show us.
BobTheAtheist2 5 months ago
@BobTheAtheist2
If you demand a 100% water-tight proof, I can't help you. (I would be amazed if there is anyone at all who can provide any water-tight to proof to anything at all when it comes to the big questions of life.)
But here is what makes sense - at least to me: 1) That there is an objective meaning with this universe. 2) That the universe originates from a powerful and willful source which transcends our boundaries of time and space.
MindTheHeart 5 months ago
@MindTheHeart Not at all. I agree that "proof" is the wrong thing to ask for. I'm simply asking for an argument that shows that the predominance of evidence points in your direction.
You're saying that you sense (or prefer?) an objective meaning to the universe. OK, not a problem. But don't expect this to be a compelling argument for anyone else. I certainly don't see evidence for that.
BobTheAtheist2 5 months ago
@BobTheAtheist2 Science only works within the limits of space and time, and there is nothing in our universe which can provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. And you are right, the universe did not pop up from nothing, but it must originate from something outside the universe, and science is not capable of detecting it. Logic and philosophy can perhaps point us in the right direction, though.
The only thing that fits the two points I made, is some sort of deity or god.
MindTheHeart 5 months ago
@MindTheHeart "Science can't explain X; therefore God exists" is unconvincing.
Does God exist? If so, I'm going to need a pretty compelling argument. I've never heard one.
BobTheAtheist2 5 months ago
@BobTheAtheist2
"Science can't explain X; therefore God exists"
Where did you get that from? I did not say that. There is absolutely no logic to that statement.
It sounds a bit funny if you twist what I say like that - and then continue saying that you have never heard a compelling argument [for God's existence].
Anyway, concerning objective meaning, wouldn't it be a huge blow our intellectual pride if our minds has no other function than evolutionary survival?
MindTheHeart 5 months ago
@MindTheHeart Good to hear that we reject that empty argument. From what you'd said, I couldn't extract anything more compelling.
No, I haven't heard a compelling argument for God's existence. Let me know what is most compelling to you.
I don't imagine much of a blow to our intellectual pride to imagine that our brains evolved for no deeper reason than just survival. That's what explains the facts best IMO.
BobTheAtheist2 5 months ago
I also strongly agree with Greg and Rabbiglenn comments below. The destruction of the temple blood sacrificial system would of been huge. it was the physical representation of the Mosaic law. their is a strong argument that the entire canon was written before AD70. it is interesting the book of Revelation does not mention destruction of the temple and actually has it still standing in chp. 11. maybe it is about the destruction of Israels world and not ours.....?
reptilehunterX 5 months ago
Seriously? Greg, someday you may just look back on yourself and just shake your head.
arcanix333 5 months ago
I agree. I also add 1 Cor 15:6, that most eyewitnesses are still alive . This would be too obvious a deceit if written late. I'm sharing the gospel today so this was quite timely. This person always says I just don't trust the bible but has no"authority" for her belief but her own 'feelings," a risky authority at best. i will use this early dating proof again to emphasize that the bible should be taken seriously.
shelleysalzman 5 months ago
Excellent and concise! Add to this evidence the omission of any mention of the destruction of the Temple (AD 70), which to Jewish writers and a Jewish audience would have been an historically pivotal event, and you have documents written much earlier than the critics would have us believe.
Rabbiglenn 5 months ago
wow, amazing, i never thought about this. Thanks Greg !
Patrickthedutch 5 months ago
"Not God's Type" by Holly Ordway!
MetalcoreChristian77 5 months ago
Good points and strong arguments.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
Written early, written late, who cares. That doesn't determine reliability when it comes to supernatural claims.
We have alleged eyewitness accounts of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster written within minutes of the sighting. So I take it you believe it exists? Yea, didn't think so.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich Were the eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness Monster willing to stand by their claims while they were tortured and killed? Maybe something to consider...
davidandrewbrewer 5 months ago
@davidandrewbrewer What evidence do you have that the apostles willingly died for their beliefs? How do you know they didn't recant but were killed anyways?
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich Good question...but the answer requires too much to cover here. If you're interested, find clayjones' blog (sorry, I can't post the link) and read his post from Jan-2011 peter-and-paul-killed-for-proclaiming-jesus-rose/. You can see both sides of the argument in the comments section. Eventually, you need to weight the evidence for yourself.
davidandrewbrewer 5 months ago
@davidandrewbrewer My question was half rhetorical because I've already looked at the evidence and know the answer.
The stories about the martyrdom of the apostles, and how they stood by their faith to the last minute were invented by the church in the early first millennium to garner devotion and hope in extant followers. There are no reliable historical records that cite anything about the disciples willingly dying for their beliefs.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich Thanks for the exchange. Interesting how we both look at the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions. Could you direct me to your evidence that the church invented these stories to garner devotion and hope in extant followers? (By the way, I'm looking for reliable historical records on which you base your assertion.)
davidandrewbrewer 5 months ago
@davidandrewbrewer Well, you stated that the apostles willingly stood by their claims as they were tortured and killed (admittedly, a popular claim of the church from the second century and onwards). However, no reliable historical evidence exists that corroborates such a claim, so it follows that the claim is nothing but a legend. I guess it's somewhat ironic that Christians defend the mythical claims of Christianity with legendary claims of its church, and then wonder why we don't believe.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich,
What evidence do you require for you to believe the claim?
What do you consider reliable historical evidence?
What makes you define the evidence given to you so far as mythical or legendary?
What are your definitions of mythical or legendary?
albertlisty 5 months ago
@albertlisty 1) Sufficient evidence. A bunch of tall tales written by people who were tremendously superstitious is not sufficient evidence to believe a claim that would turn our understanding of the universe on its head if true.
2) Not enough space in the youtube comments to type it out. Sorry.
3) Mythical/legendary are conclusions. I'm not defining the evidence as mythical. I'm saying the insufficiency of the evidence leads me to believe the claims are mythical.
4) Same as the dictionary.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich
1) Can you give me an example of Sufficient Evidence for an event outside of the bible that you believe actually happened? Preferably, something before photography, video or radio would be closer to the situation in the bible. Basically something that relied on words not pictures of any kind to demonstrate that it really happened.
I'm wanting to get an understanding of what you consider sufficient evidence as you have shown that you don't believe the words in the bible to be true.
albertlisty 5 months ago
@ivanisavich
2) My last response for #1 could also help in understanding your response for #2.
3) You said, "I'm saying the insufficiency of the evidence leads me to believe the claims are mythical."
What do you mean by lacking?
Give me an example of a piece of evidence that is lacking in the bible so I understand how you mean lacking.
4) Which dictionary? There can be different meanings depending on which one you go to.
albertlisty 5 months ago
@albertlisty Lacking means lacking. There is no historical evidence from anywhere except legends within the church that the apostles stood by their faith while they were tortured/killed, or even much evidence that they were tortured/killed at all.
As for a dictionary, pick one. Websters. There you go. "Myth" is not a complicated word to define. Don't make things harder than they have to be.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich
Wow... Stating that there is "NO historical evidence from ANYWHERE except legends within the church" isn't showing any examples that you have personally seen. It sounds more like a common statement that you have heard instead of actually looked into this for yourself.
What about providing an example of Sufficient Evidence for an event outside of the bible that you believe actually happened?
albertlisty 5 months ago
@albertlisty I have looked into it, as you clearly have not.
Or feel free to correct me. Go on...cite examples of historical records stating that the apostles affirmed their faith up until their death and right through their torture. As stated above, legends promoted by the church from the late 2nd century and onwards obviously do not count.
Can't wait to hear about all of these historical records I've been missing!
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@albertlisty I have looked into it, as you clearly have not.
Or feel free to correct me. Go on...cite examples of historical records stating that the apostles affirmed their faith up until their death and right through their torture. As stated above, legends promoted by the church from the late 2nd century and onwards obviously do not count.
Can't wait to hear about all of these historical records I've been missing!
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich,
I haven't made a claim one way or the other. I haven't expressed to you in the least what I know or not so for you to say I clearly have not looked into it is not speaking from what you have read from me.
You made the claim that the historical data isn't enough to suffice for you to believe. So I wanted to ask you what would be enough evidence. I can't get you to tell me what that evidence would be. >>>continue on next post >>>
albertlisty 5 months ago
@ivanisavich,
I can't get you to tell me what evidence would be enough for you to believe. It's obvious that the bible is not sufficient as you don't believe it to be historically accurate.
You continue to speak of legend and so on but when I ask you what about providing an example of Sufficient Evidence for an event outside of the bible that you believe actually happened, you avoid the question. Can you give me something from history that you do believe?
albertlisty 5 months ago
@albertlisty I love how you cannot provide ANY evidence for the claim in question (the apostles were tortured yet did not recant their faith), yet somehow put the onus on me to explain what sufficient evidence is.
NO evidence is certainly not sufficient evidence, no matter what the definition of "sufficient evidence" is.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich, It was your claim that there wasn't sufficient evidence so the onus should be on you to show that the evidence isn't sufficient. Saying its myths or legends isn't evidence, it's just a claim.
Giving you any evidence would be like throwing a rock over the wall and asking you if the rock is good enough. You'll just keep saying it's not, seeing how you just said that NO evidence is sufficient.
You have already made up your mind regardless of what is true or not.
albertlisty 5 months ago
@albertlisty What evidence? You've listed none. No evidence is not sufficient evidence, wouldn't you agree?
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich quick question....would you accept the evidence if @albertlisty gave it? or would you disregard it because it concludes something contrary to your beliefs?
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 I would consider it. I wouldn't necessarily accept it.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich ok, define "consider" please.
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 Is a dictionary too far away?
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich lol. ok, i get ya. Basically what I was asking when I asked you to define that was, "when you say consider, do you mean that you will really actually wrestle with the evidence and honestly deal with it as it comes or will you just hear the other person out knowing full well you are going to deny it no matter what the other position actually has to say?"
hopefully that cleared it up! ;)
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 I have no reason to deny it outright. Unfortunately, so far the evidence has either been wholly unconvincing or non-existent.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich there we go!
I do believe you have reason to deny it because if it were true, that means you have a standard of holiness that you ought to adhere to. do you want to adhere to a holy standard and give up your life and submit your life to Jesus? If not, then you do have a reason to deny it ought right. :P lol
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 I think you misread my last post. I said I do not have a reason to deny it outright.
Also, having a "standard of holiness" is irrelevant. I could make up a religion right now that requires you to follow a set of rigid rules and worship me. Would it be rational for me to say you deny that religion just because it has a standard of holiness? That you just deny its truth only because you're afraid to submit to me?
No of course not. So drop the asinine bullshit.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich hmm. I'm confused. I don't see how i misread it. I see that you said you have no reason to outright deny it. that is clear. what I was saying is that you claim you have no outright reason, claiming the "lack of evidence" Bertrand Russell approach. But what I am saying is that it doesn't matter how much evidence you are given, you would always interpret it as "i'll read it, but its wrong" approach. It is because of this standard of holiness that you interpret it as such and thus...
npotts89 5 months ago
@ivanisavich ....you will not adhere to what the Scripture actually states.
as for your final comments, they are not needed and it is highly immature. if you want to be academic about this, you clearly do not show it. let's mature and have a civil conversation.
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 If I wanted to be academic about this I would not be posting in the comment section of Youtube, or responding to your retarded posts.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich i just figured you would have a better attitude about it. my mistake for assuming that.
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 Yea, it is your mistake. In the future you might learn that people will be happier to discuss things with you when you're ready to drop the smug bullshit and stop telling them what you think their own motivations are for rejecting the Bible.
ivanisavich 5 months ago
@ivanisavich again, you prove my point. Thank you very much. Hope you have a wonderful day!
npotts89 5 months ago
@npotts89 Is that your standard response when you lose a debate?
ivanisavich 4 months ago
@ivanisavich This is my standard response when people are immature and cannot have a mature and academic discussion.
npotts89 4 months ago
@ivanisavich I was saying that you proved my point because my point earlier was that it didn't matter what the opposing side said, you would neglect it. and it seems that you have done just that, you have cowered into immaturity...which is one I haven't seen often but I have seen it.
I'll be waiting for a mature response. I won't hold my breath.
npotts89 4 months ago
@npotts89 I save my mature responses for those capable of understanding them. Not idiots who project their own intellectual ineptitude on their opponent by trying to tell them what their own intentions are.
Enjoy your fairytales, I'll enjoy reason instead.
ivanisavich 4 months ago
@ivanisavich for some reason, I doubt that.
as for fairytales...what do you mean by this?
npotts89 4 months ago
@albertlisty touche on the presup method.
npotts89 5 months ago