Pascal's Wager Simplified

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Here are two quotations on the Risen Christ, sonship: “I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if ...[text shortened]... ss of Jesus Christ.” -Brennan Manning, Abba's Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging

Here's a third which may appeal to those with an appreciation for logic: “If your life is Christ, then your death will be only more of Christ, forever. If your life is only Christlessness, then your death will be only more Christlessness, forever. That's not fundamentalism, that's the law of non-contradiction.” -Peter Kreeft, Jesus-Shock

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Both focus on Person of Christ and His Resurrection [unique event in human history].

So any quote that focus' on that will do, regardless of how stupid it might be? Is that your implication?

Do you have any familiarity with the congressional hearings over Watergate during Richard Nixon's Presidency?
No. Is it relevant?

Maybe you just don't see what I see in the quote. Here is what I see:
Colson is arguing that because he knows of an example of 12 men who could not keep a secret for three weeks, therefore 12 other men could not possibly have kept a lie for 40 years.
I find this to be ridiculously bad logic. I also find the conclusion to be obviously false because I think we could all think of examples of men we know who have kept lies for 40 years or more, and if we know of at least 1, then there are likely more than 12 in the world, conclusively disproving the claim.

"Courage" as an aspect of faith is insightful.
In what way is 'faith' involved? The quote claims they were sticking to the truth, not demonstrating their faith in something.
How does the ridiculously bad logic in the quote demonstrate courage? Surely you could have demonstrated courage as an aspect of faith without mentioning Watergate? Or are you making another ridiculous argument: that the reason the Watergate men lacked courage because faith was not involved? Surely this would contradict the argument in the quote which is that the Watergate men cracked under pressure because they were telling a lie.

Or is this just a case of you didn't think before you posted and now you are desperately trying to salvage it?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
At the moment three longest threads on page one are by wolfgang59 and vivify.

The Wolfgang thread (Logic) is a continuation of another Wolfgang thread (If god then ...) which was a response to another thread which I have not managed to find.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Curiosity Question: Customary for a thread with an OP which receives [0] [7] Thumbs to garner 156 posts in three days?

In addition to what Twhitehead posted, you ramp up the post count by responding to any rebuttal with either a vacuous non-sequitur Reveal Hidden Content, or by just repeatedly copy-pasting the OP again.

As for why you get the down votes ... perhaps we all just think you're full of ... 🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
At the moment three longest threads on page one are by wolfgang59 and vivify.

Don't confuse him with the facts.
Or the usual suspects, for that matter.
They will have their way, regardless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So any quote that focus' on that will do, regardless of how stupid it might be? Is that your implication?

[b]Do you have any familiarity with the congressional hearings over Watergate during Richard Nixon's Presidency?
No. Is it relevant?

Maybe you just don't see what I see in the quote. Here is what I see:
Colson is arguing that because he kn ...[text shortened]... t a case of you didn't think before you posted and now you are desperately trying to salvage it?[/b]

"Courage" as an aspect of faith is insightful." applies to the second quotation: "For me the most radical demand of Christian faith lies in summoning the courage to say yes to the present risenness of Jesus Christ.” -Brennan Manning

Originally posted by Agerg
In addition to what Twhitehead posted, you ramp up the post count by responding to any rebuttal with either a vacuous non-sequitur [hidden](which of course raises ire or bewilderment in the person whose time you just wasted by having them respond to your hackneyed "arguments" - which motivates them to press you for a better answer)[/hidden], or by just repeate ...[text shortened]... again.

As for why you get the down votes ... perhaps we all just think you're full of ... 🙂

Agerg, I appreciate the honesty and candor of your opinion. Thank you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Don't confuse him with the facts.
Or the usual suspects, for that matter.
They will have their way, regardless.

Apparently I did: "The Wolfgang thread (Logic) is a continuation of another Wolfgang thread (If god then ...) which was a response to another thread which I have not managed to find." -twhitehead (taking the initiative to reply for wolfgang59)

All my recent threads have been initiated by questions arising from
other threads. It drives me mad that the atheists cannot answer a
question without going off on wild tangents. I am merely trying to
bring some order to the chaos. And bring some light to the discussions.


Let there be light!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
All my recent threads have been initiated by questions arising from
other threads. It drives me mad that the atheists cannot answer a
question without going off on wild tangents. I am merely trying to
bring some order to the chaos. And bring some light to the discussions.


Let there be light!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
All my recent threads have been initiated by questions arising from
other threads. It drives me mad that the atheists* cannot answer a
question without going off on wild tangents. I am merely trying to
bring some order to the chaos. And bring some light to the discussions.


Let there be light!

* "atheists" or theists?

Please post your most pressing three questions here. For the sake of clarity, define any terms subject to interpretation.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[Please post your most pressing three questions here. For the sake of clarity, define any terms subject to interpretation.

What do you mean by "define" and "interpretation"?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What do you mean by "define" and "interpretation"?

He's saying you muffed up, son.