[Replying to post 41 by benchwarmer
I find RR's response typical of the type of response given when there is no single solid reason.
I tell you what. You show me a person on either side of the equation who is under the impression that there is a "single solid reason" to believe, or dismiss the claims, and I can more than likely show you a, simple minded person, because it does not work like that my friend.
I think there is a confusion of terms here. I am not claiming there is one and only one solid reason for anything. I'm talking about A solid reason. Do you have A solid reason. i.e. what is your MOST solid reason. I'm not sure how that has escaped your notice given the title of this thread or the part of my response which you conveniently did not respond to when I gave one example for disbelief.
In other words, I gave a single (not many) reason which I find solid. Are there others? Sure. I gave what I thought was my most solid reason.
Continually insinuating others are 'simple minded' or not thinking well is not garnering you any points. It does, however, make me care less and less about having a dialog with you. Let's stick to the topic please.
I think there is a confusion of terms here. I am not claiming there is one and only one solid reason for anything. I'm talking about A solid reason. Do you have A solid reason. i.e. what is your MOST solid reason.
Which I have already demonstrated makes no sense! If I say, "the Resurrection of Jesus", then the question becomes, "why would you believe such a thing"? If I say, "because we have the reports", then I will be ask, "why would you believe the reports"? So then, as you can see, for anyone who actually uses the mind, to arrive to the Resurrection, there must, and has to be, multiple reasons.
In order to maybe explain this better, there is another member of this site with whom I have been in debate with, and in the end as far as I can tell, he only has 2 reasons for his unbelief. The first is, the claims are far to extraordinary, and then it is, the Resurrection is not "the most preferable answer". The point is, if he cannot go on to give the reasons behind these conclusions, then these would be very weak arguments by themselves.
I'm not sure how that has escaped your notice given the title of this thread or the part of my response which you conveniently did not respond to when I gave one example for disbelief.
All I can tell you is that I attempt to answer every point, and I am sure I will miss one from time, to time. So if you can make the point again, which you claim I "conveniently did not respond to" I will be more than happy to address it.
With that being said, there are numerous things I have pointed out which you clearly seem to have ignored, and yet you are going to attempt to bring up the one you think I avoided? Really?
In fact, my last response to you was in reply to your post #41. The only place in this post where you seem to give a reason is when you say,
All we have are claims from authors (some anonymous) about what other people claimed. Since I have no way to independently verify these claims, I cannot honestly believe the claims. This does not mean the claims are false (as some like to strawman my position), but simply that I find no reasonable reason to believe the claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not more unverifiable claims.
Okay, so here is what I said in my very next post to you,
rwj wrote:This seems to sort of demonstrates one who does not know a whole lot about what is contained in the Bible. These letters we have are not simply claims, but are also direct evidence of how these men went on to live their life well into their old age.
These letters are also direct evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have traveled around with Paul on his missionary journeys for years, which clearly demonstrates, this author would have been alive at the time of Christ, would have known all the Apostles, spent much time with them, and known the claims they were making first hand. This demonstrates, the claims of the resurrection could not possibly have been something the Apostles never claimed, and these tales came along much later after the Apostles were gone, as some of the critics suggest.
Again, for one to simply claim, "all we have is claims" sort of demonstrates pretty clearly one who is not thinking very much, because there are a lot of things we can know, and a lot of arguments which are made by the critics, that can be refuted by looking at these letters which contain way more than simply, claims.
So then, if there is another issue I may have missed, then please do remind me.
Continually insinuating others are 'simple minded' or not thinking well is not garnering you any points.
My friend, I am not here to, "gather points" whatever that means? Next, if we are in a debate, and are on opposing sides of this debate, are you not attempting to demonstrate that I am not thinking correctly?
As far as the term "simple minded" the only time I recall using this phrase was here,
rwj wrote:I tell you what. You show me a person on either side of the equation who is under the impression that there is a "single solid reason" to believe, or dismiss the claims, and I can more than likely show you a, simple minded person, because it does not work like that my friend.
Now the question is, do you disagree with my statement here? Or, are you under the impression with me, that there would have to be way more involved than one single reason?
My point is, you either understand how complex this matter actually is, and that there are no simple answers. Or, you simply do not actually want to have to think through all that would be involved, and would rather simply have, simple answers.
As I have pointed out in the past, it is not as simple as many Christians would like it to be when they say, "the Bible says, I believe it, and that settles it" but it is also not as simple as many unbelievers make it out to be.
So then, either you agree with me that there are no simple answers to this complex matter"? Or, you are under the impression that this matter is simple, and there are simple answers? So then, you tell me which side you end up on here?
It does, however, make me care less and less about having a dialog with you. Let's stick to the topic please.
Listen, I have been on this site for almost 7 years now, and I have had folks attempt to insult me, they have broken rules of the forum, and I have even received a threatening PM from one of the members.
None of these things have ever bothered me in the least, because I want folks to feel free to express themselves any way they wish, and I look past all these things to what it is they are actually saying to me, in order to determine if they may be correct, and I in error, because that is how important the truth is to me.
My point is, if you are more concerned about how people say things, as opposed to what is actually being said, then I can tell you from experience a debate forum may not be the place to be.
As far as sticking to the topic, I really do not see how the words I use to make my points would be in any way, on topic?