Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs I have already said, I do not accept that how truly or deeply or sincerely or insistently or self-destructively people believe [that Jesus was who Christian writers after His death started claiming he was] has any bearing on the veracity of they believe.
You know that is not my view. I asked you a question that you have once again dodged. Take some of the disciples of Jesus that were martyred for their faith, do you think they would have chosen to be crucified if they hadn't witnessed the risen Christ and seen his miracles and truly believed that he was the who he claimed he was?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am sure telling yourself this serves some purpose for you on a personal level. However, in so far as it 'serves' our conversation, it is little more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I think if someone 'looses their faith' it was not genuine to start off with.
It's interesting that your religious fervour enables you, in your own mind at least, to reach back into someone else's past and declare what they firmly believed was real at that time to have been an error.
The other problem with your decision to use the No True Scotsman logical fallacy is that, according to your own 'logic', no one [including you] can claim that your current faith is "genuine" because we do not yet know whether you will lose it one day.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhat would you say has bearing on the veracity of what they believe? Do you think the entire New Testament has been fabricated and none of it is true?
As I have already said, I do not accept that how truly or deeply or sincerely or insistently or self-destructively people believe [that Jesus was who Christian writers after His death started claiming he was] has any bearing on the veracity of they believe.
Originally posted by FMFLike you did in the past, I may presently believe my faith is genuine. But if I loose it in the future it should mean that it wasn't. Time will tell.
I am sure telling yourself this serves some purpose for you on a personal level. However, in so far as it 'serves' our conversation, it is little more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.
It's interesting that your religious fervour enables you, in your own mind at least, to reach back into someone else's past and declare what they firmly believed was real at th ...[text shortened]... hat your current faith is "genuine" because we do not yet know whether you will lose it one day.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have posted many times on what I see as the historicity of Jesus, several times in posts directly addressed to you, and at least once within the last week. You must have chosen to ignore it or simply pretend I didn't write it.
What would you say has bearing on the veracity of what they believe? Do you think the entire New Testament has been fabricated and none of it is true?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThen we agree that you can only speculate and make an unsubstantiated claim that your current faith is "genuine" and that it would be untrue to categorically state that it is "genuine".
Like you did in the past, I may presently believe my faith is genuine. But if I loose it in the future it should mean that it wasn't. Time will tell.
By the way, if you think it means anything to me for someone who is still a Christian to question the sincerity of my faith in the past by retrospectively branding it as fake, then [1] you do not understand what it means to be an ex-Christian (or perhaps an ex-anything) and [2] you still exhibit almost no understanding of what loss of faith or changing faith means - which means there's a big blind spot in your comprehension of the human condition. Perhaps your it is your religionist 'wiring' has given you that blind spot.