The apologetics game!

-Removed-

What does it mean to "accept the evidence of the words themselves"?

If words can be evidence of what the words are saying, then why don't you accept the evidence of the words I've been writing to you? What is so important to you that you will not accept the evidence of the words you have seen in my messages?

Originally posted by lemon lime
What is so important to you that you will not accept the evidence of the words you have seen in my messages?

The words in your messages provide evidence that you do not accept the Bibles as evidence supporting Christian doctrines. So, what evidence are the Christian doctrines you subscribe to based on?

-Removed-

lemon lime revealed that he does not accept the Bible as evidence supporting Christian doctrine on page 12 in an exchange with you, as it happens.

Originally posted by FMF
lemon lime revealed that he does not accept the Bible as evidence supporting Christian doctrine on page 12 in an exchange with you, as it happens.

No, what I have actually revealed is that I do not accept your definition of 'evidence'.

Both of you have had plenty of opportunity to understand what I've been saying. But clearly you have no intention of addressing this, and will simply continue to play the same cat and mouse type of game I've seen you playing with other Christians... the Eden thread is just one recent example.

I have already told you that I have no intention of being the mouse in one of your cat and mouse games... so why do you suppose I've participated in this with you up until this point? If I have no intention of being your mouse, then why do you suppose I've bothered to stay with this as long as I have?

-Removed-

Say what? How could that have been a substitution? A substitution for what? It was an observation, not a substitution.

You either don't understand my point of view or have been intentionally ignoring it. You would rather tell me my point of view than for me to tell you, so there's really no point in any of this other than for me to see if my theory was correct. I wasn't sure of the cat and mouse aspect of this before we started, but now I can now confidently call this a fact...

Simply put: You two seem to get your jollies jerking Christians around.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I have already told you that I have no intention of being the mouse in one of your cat and mouse games... so why do you suppose I've participated in this with you up until this point? If I have no intention of being your mouse, then why do you suppose I've bothered to stay with this as long as I have?

Personally, I think it's because you misstated your stance earlier on this thread and you are the kind of poster who can scarcely ever admit an error and therefore you will deflect and evade and change the topic over and over and over again in an effort to bury your error even at the expense of your own credibility, which may well remain intact in your own mind due to your pomposity. Anyone can go back and trace your unravelling statements and arguments from around page 11 onwards ~ where you appeared to inadvertently take up an essentially non-Christian stance regarding the evidence provided by the Bible ~ and they can see exactly what I am referring to.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, what I have actually revealed is that I do not accept your definition of 'evidence'.

Well this brings us back to the question you have been sidestepping so assiduously. If as you have suggested, the Bible ~ as written words ~ is not "valid evidence", and therefore is not "evidence" of Jesus rising from the dead, then on what "evidence" do you base your belief that Jesus DID rise from the dead? What other "evidence" of him rising from the dead exists aside from the "evidence" laid out in the Bible ~ which you yourself have said you do not accept as being "evidence"?

-Removed-

The game is over now... this is the part where you two are supposed to go into some after-game commentary and declare yourselves the winners.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The game is over now... this is the part where you two are supposed to go into some after-game commentary and declare yourselves the winners.

But after 6 or more pages, you still haven't answered this: If as you have suggested, the Bible ~ as written words ~ is not "valid evidence", and therefore is not "evidence" of Jesus rising from the dead, then on what "evidence" do you base your belief that Jesus DID rise from the dead?