Christian 'debate'

[JoeyKnothead]

Through a couple threads now, I've been trying to get some of our Christian claimants to either support their claims, or at least have the honor just to address challenges to them.

My efforts seem to have fallen on deaf eyes.

For debate:

Should Christians / claimants who refuse to address challenges to their claims be dismissed as liars? Preachers? Dishonorable?


(Clarifactory edit)

[1213]

...
Here's one
Notice Wootah makes multiple claims and avoids responsibility.

Thanks. Interesting, by what I see, he was speaking in Christian Concept, not necessary making claims it is a undeniable universal fact.

And another'n
Eloi, in the OP, claims there's some dude with a bit of a book that somehow supports other claims within the OP.

You asked the book for analysis. I think the book of Jeremiah is in the Bible for to analyze. Do you think it is not real, or that Daniel didn't have it?

Are (some) Christians devoid of honor? Or is it they just ignore anything that doesn't fit their religious beliefs?

Maybe, it can also be so that the question was seen not serious, which is why not answered. Also, in some cases it may just be that person didn't notice it. And sometimes it may even be that person doesn't just know what to say. I don't think it is enough reason to mock them and call them dishonorable.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Here's one
Notice Wootah makes multiple claims and avoids responsibility.

Thanks. Interesting, by what I see, he was speaking in Christian Concept, not necessary making claims it is a undeniable universal fact.

Then it shouldn't be a problem just to say as much.

And another'n
Eloi, in the OP, claims there's some dude with a bit of a book that somehow supports other claims within the OP.

You asked the book for analysis. I think the book of Jeremiah is in the Bible for to analyze. Do you think it is not real, or that Daniel didn't have it?

No, I asked for the book that guy was toting around, not what the Bible, or a claimant, says that book contains.

Are (some) Christians devoid of honor? Or is it they just ignore anything that doesn't fit their religious beliefs?

Maybe, it can also be so that the question was seen not serious, which is why not answered.

That's awful convenient. Not only does one get to avoid responsibility, they get to accuse the challenger of not being serious.

Also, in some cases it may just be that person didn't notice it.

That's kinda hard to believe when challenged multiple times.

Of course there is the issue of placing folks on an "ignore" status. That's another convenient way to avoid having to face being challenged.

And sometimes it may even be that person doesn't just know what to say.

Why them poor fellers, they know what to claim, they just fumble what to say when challenged.

I don't think it is enough reason to mock them and call them dishonorable.

I propose honor can withstand any mockery one might toss its way.

[TRANSPONDER]

So many excuses. It's far from unusual for a Bible apologist to say they'll have to get back to us. I do it myself..with the Daniel apologetic, for instance.

Fact is however excusing oneself doesn't make the Christian case. In fact it is an eyebrow raiser as yet again the Religion is pushed towards the tiger while the apologist retreats with one of their lives intact. Verily, verily, I say into you, it's about self - credibility, not about the credibility of the religion.

How many times have we seen the Faith made to look like a dogs' dinner while the apologist strives to escape with the Last Word, so he can tell himself He Won? Of a surely, folks, I do believe it is all about the Id:
(1) faith invests personal cred into the thing believed
(2) Godfaith depends on and involves a conviction that the god is putting true facts into the head (Revelation). This explains why they all have different characters and opinions of God who hates the same people the apologist does (n.b thus they all differ unless the Church keeps the Dogma unified. Sorta. And why some leave to find a Church that fits their current beliefs)
(3) thus the God is their own mind inflated to Cosmic size. It is the ultimate in personal pride.
(4) not only is it essential that the (rather fragile) belief be protected by massed protective polemics, excuses, denial and sophistics, because to admit being wrong about anything significant shatters the belief that God is downloading Truth, it explains why they "Know" that they are right and everyone else is wrong; but at need, the cred of the Faith can be sacrificed in order to allow the protagonist to avoid having to admit "I was wrong". The essential Faith in their own being Right even if their religion is made to look like something the cat dragged in is the key to the basis of Faithbased apologetics - the thing believed is taken (a priori) as the established Fact. Thus burden of disp[roof falls automatically and by Faith on the Other side.

Which is why the Theists cannot get it into their heads that the burden of proof is (logically) falling on their faith claim.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #5]

Same is true for atheists. It seems to be a human problem.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I'll be your huckleberry.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I'll be your huckleberry.

I don't see why I'd choose you for anything.

[POI]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

Great response. If I might add, for which I have said elsewhere.... Often times, a debate is lost when (3) actions take place from one side of the debate:

1. No response at all --- (or lack of any action)
2. The subject gets changed
3. Insults or threats are issued

Do caveats exist? Certainly. However, more often than not, it's a common trend here to see option 1.

[POI]

Please tell what are those challenges? (one example would be enough for start)

Here's another example... You stated one is good enough, so here you go... The thread asks Christians to test if they themselves are really followers. Instead of engaging the 'challenge', the interlocutor changed the narrative. And when I tried to redirect it back to the Christian, the Christian did not respond. This is quite commonplace....

Post #5 (viewtopic.php?p=1116797#p1116797)

[1213]

Please tell what are those challenges? (one example would be enough for start)

Here's another example... You stated one is good enough, so here you go... The thread asks Christians to test if they themselves are really followers. Instead of engaging the 'challenge', the interlocutor changed the narrative. And when I tried to redirect it back to the Christian, the Christian did not respond. This is quite commonplace....

Post #5 (viewtopic.php?p=1116797#p1116797)

I think Bible gives only one strict "rule" that defines who is really a disciple of Jesus ("Christian") and that is:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

I think it is good to notice, atheists don't make the rules in this case.

But, I think "Christians" should normally respond, at least if person has not already done that. So, sorry, if you didn't get response.

[POI]

Please tell what are those challenges? (one example would be enough for start)

Here's another example... You stated one is good enough, so here you go... The thread asks Christians to test if they themselves are really followers. Instead of engaging the 'challenge', the interlocutor changed the narrative. And when I tried to redirect it back to the Christian, the Christian did not respond. This is quite commonplace....

Post #5 (viewtopic.php?p=1116797#p1116797)

I think Bible gives only one strict "rule" that defines who is really a disciple of Jesus ("Christian") and that is:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

I think it is good to notice, atheists don't make the rules in this case.

But, I think "Christians" should normally respond, at least if person has not already done that. So, sorry, if you didn't get response.

Well, all I can do is point back to the OP (i.e.):

"Some of our Christian claimants to either support their claims, or at least have the honor just to address challenges to them.

My efforts seem to have fallen on deaf eyes.

For debate:

Should Christians / claimants who refuse to address challenges to their claims be dismissed as liars? Preachers? Dishonorable?"

**********************

In particular, this said interlocutor, for example, seems to have a habit of redirects, or complete disengagement. Thus, at this point, is it safe to classify this chap as a (liar, "preacher", and/or dishonorable)?

I will address your response to ELOI's non-response in the other thread, as to not derail the intent of this post. (viewtopic.php?f=28&t=40540&start=10).