Jesus Saves!

[Masterblaster]

I was looking at 2 discussion titles.
Special Rules... Why? and Jesus is Imaginary!

The second title is, grammatically, a personal exclamation, . It reminds me of a Pence comma, for some reason. The first title is inferring that there is something in place, that is incorrect and it becomes a pleading against the situation. When you contribute to these discussions, your post is embossed with the discussion title, as if it is an advertisement placement. I find this technique interesting.

My title is a well known roadside sign. It will become embedded in any contributions to this discussion.
Should roadside, Jesus Saves! signs be removed. Does Jesus save? What is he saving people from? What are the intentions of people who erect these signs?

[POI]

I was looking at 2 discussion titles.
Special Rules... Why? and Jesus is Imaginary!

The second title is, grammatically, a personal exclamation, . It reminds me of a Pence comma, for some reason. The first title is inferring that there is something in place, that is incorrect and it becomes a pleading against the situation. When you contribute to these discussions, your post is embossed with the discussion title, as if it is an advertisement placement. I find this technique interesting.

My title is a well known roadside sign. It will become embedded in any contributions to this discussion.
Should roadside, Jesus Saves! signs be removed. Does Jesus save? What is he saving people from? What are the intentions of people who erect these signs?

Maybe all three are, instead, catchy slogans meant to draw in or engage interlocutors into discussion.

[Masterblaster]

Hello POI
I agree with you. That is what they are. It is a combination of click bait and bill boarding. To proceed with honest engagement, I now feel obligated to defend the exclamation. Jesus Saves!
I will also attempt to honestly answer my questions. This is why I was expecting you to explain how you regard Jesus as imaginary.

[Masterblaster]

Should roadside, Jesus Saves! signs be removed?
These signs possess no offensive content. They are not intentionally misleading or unlawful. If the usual signage laws are observed then, they fall under the protections of free speech and general secular etiquette.

[POI]

This is why I was expecting you to explain how you regard Jesus as imaginary.

I did, but you did not really have anything fruitful to press it. Here was one of my responses, unpressed:

"Does Jesus appear to the ones who ask? If so, through petitionary and/or intercessory prayer, why has he not appeared to me? And since he hasn't, does it require more or less 'spin' to explain why he hasn't?

My answer is simple. The reason he has not appeared to me, is because "Jesus is imaginary". Alternatively, all 13+ "Christian answers" given, in the original post, look to require more 'spin' to justify. If you do not agree, we can discuss."

[POI]

Should roadside, Jesus Saves! signs be removed?

If the country/state/town is protected by free speech, then obviously no. If the ones paying for the billboard space wish to spend their money on such a thing, then more power to them.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose that one has to roll with adverts such as 'Jesus saves!' so long as atheists can put up a billboard next to it "But secularisation forgives debt".

Imaginary? Gospel Jesus is imaginary, and chat about motives aside, there is a good case to be made for supposing that Jesus is imaginary, from the i Corinthians visions to the Gospel and the voice believers have in their heads.

A case to be made even if believers stop their ears. And,friends, I see this fingers in the ears cl;early and repeatedly. A darn good point is ignored, denied or a pretence is made of not comprehending . Faithbased denial is not just a finger -pointing; it is a real religious discipline for preserving Faith by Not Listening.

It is an Axiom that you can't convert anyone - they can only convert themselves. But those with their minds not welded shut can see which case makes sense or indeed are undeniably correct. Like the Cetan Sequence undermined Genesis and, thus the whole OT, and the Nativities undermine the NT. I have only done a small but irrefutable (which isn't the same as undeniable ) point about Joseph living in Judea (Matthew) or Nazareth (Luke) but the whole story has been debated elsewhere.

And of course, the resurrections have been debated here. I understand the desire to make the central Fact required for Christianity work, but the level of excuses, making stuff up and Denial is really only to be explained by a Faith that is considered the most important thing, and everything must be sacrificed to it, including reason, credibility and intellectual integrity.

[Masterblaster]

Hello POI
I have a problem with your logic. You say,

My answer is simple. The reason he has not appeared to me, is because "Jesus is imaginary"

Now imagine if I proceed in a similar fashion in this discussion ,and I say

"My answer is simple. The reason he saves is because he has saved me".

How far will I get with this nonsense, POI

[POI]

Hello POI
I have a problem with your logic. You say,

My answer is simple. The reason he has not appeared to me, is because "Jesus is imaginary"

Now imagine if I proceed in a similar fashion in this discussion ,and I say

"My answer is simple. The reason he saves is because he has saved me".

How far will I get with this nonsense, POI

You, of all people, should be familiar with context. Meaning, when Christians stress context to skeptics when the skeptic presents Bible verses which are uncomfortable.

When I say 'simple', I mean it is simple to follow or understand. But maybe it isn't so simple for you? Maybe you still don't understand? Case/point, I did not resort to a tautology in my reasoning. The point of the thread is to present that all given explanations, other than 'Jesus is imaginary', require more apologetics to explain. If you disagree, prove it.

Another example:

Why isn't Santa Claus coming to my house Xmas Eve? Because he's imaginary.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Transponder
POI led with, Jesus is Imaginary!, on his discussion thread. I do not know what POI was referring to but the Jesus I relate to is real. As I mentioned at the time, he is as real as Muhammad Ali. If something required spin then it would infer that it was an untruth to begin with. The whole discussion appeared to be lopsided, and prejudged from the start.