Winning Souls for Christ

Originally posted by mikelom
No. The man who hold's no belief in a god of make believe, or a god in other's minds, simply furthers to improve humanity for the sake of well-being to other humans - not the well being of a created god.

Your concept of god is within you, instilled and indoctrinated. Unless, of course, you have had the opportunity to attempt to, or choose, otherwise. 😉

Man does not have a conditioned response to God--- although the same cannot be said for the various religions he has created--- his quest for God is universal and transcendent.

Man does have a conditioned response to atheism--- not only is it learned, it requires unlearning his default position.

You are correct in one aspect of the concept of God from within: it is from within that the quest begins, regardless of eventual indoctrination related to the same.

Originally posted by Agerg
Given an infinite number of potential formulations of "God" (or Gods), then unless you can demonstrate the default position of man has to be belief in some [b]particular god (namely yours), I say the human brain at doesn't have the capacity to store all these god notions (at most one of which being correct), and would not be equipped to calculate (even in ...[text shortened]... e 'correct' god, why need we suppose it is the default position to believe in *any* gods?[/b]

As jaywill accurately points out, the alleged potential infinites have no bearing on the topic. Man has forever considered a being of More, an Other outside of humanity responsible for creation. How he eventually described this More/Other is beside the point. I do not claim a default position of belief in the Living God--- otherwise, we wouldn't say it is the answer to the question: there'd be no question!

Life is a series of questions. That you would inquire (ha!) about something within its borders only serves to prove that point.

Originally posted by Agerg
The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor. I assume, so long as you can meaningfully recall, you've never been an atheist.

=================================
The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor. I assume, so long as you can meaningfully recall, you've never been an atheist.
========================================

There was a period of time when I believed that I myself was god. The only supreme being that I really knew about was myself.

So Jesus and Thor are about the same ?

I am going to leave this post right now and do an Internet surf on Thor. If Jesus Christ and Thor are roughly the same, I think I should see as many discussions, forums, debates arguing for or against the reality of Thor as there are concerning Jesus Christ.

Maybe, I will ask you why there is such a disproportional amount of attention given to one or the other, if they are about the same.

You could drop me a hint. Since you have owned a PC how many debates have you been involved in trying to convince people that Thor is not really God ? IF Thor is as believable as Jesus, then perhaps you spend the same amount of time and effort to argue about Jesus ?

One is as believable as the other, so I think you should have given somewhat equal time to inform people that neither is a manifestation of God. Am I right ?

Anyway, off I go to get some hits on Thor.

Many hits on the Internet on Jesus as verses Thor doesn't prove that Jesus is God incarnate, of course. I would insult no one's intelligence to suggest that.

But, if Jesus as God is as believable as Thor as God, WHY is there tons more sites discussing Jesus then Thor ?

When I surfed for Thor, pretty much all I got was the coming motion picture. The hits on Jesus were endless.

But Agerg says one is as believable as the other to him. What's up with this huge greater proportion of serious attention given to discussing Jesus Christ then Thor ?

Originally posted by whodey
Purgatory.

Blah!! There is no purgatory!! 😵

(

ever been to Hoboken?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor. I assume, so long as you can meaningfully recall, you've never been an atheist.
========================================

There was a period of time wh ...[text shortened]... neither is a manifestation of God. Am I right ?

Anyway, off I go to get some hits on Thor.[/b]

There are numerous ways to show your argument here is poor..

Firstly you're commiting the logical fallacy of appealing to numbers. It's a popular fallacy among Christians where they reason that since over a billion people believe in Christian god then there must be more than a grain of truth to it; they forget that over a billion people happen to think Islamic God is the correct god, not the Christian one.
They also fail to recognise that Christianity owes its high subscription rate due to its legacy of aggressive 'sales tactics' through the dark ages and sheep mentality. I can't think of an easy way to explain this one whilst keeping it short enough to hold your attention but I'll try:

If a majority of people in some group believe X, then this falsely lends support to an additional member of the group, X is true (and he will appear stupid should he oppose the majority); if this person believes he increases the majority for the next person (who will look slightly more stupid should he oppose this bigger majority), and if this person believes he increases further the majority for the next person (who will look slightly more stupid should he oppose this bigger majority), and so on...

Your religion has been playing this game for about 2000 years (with increasing numbers of groups (of people) every generation), helped along the way in this endeavour with all manner of grizzly atrocities like the crusades etc... That a billion+ Christians exist now, some of which desiring to indoctrinate the next generation (increasing the number even further) is hardly surprising at all!


Secondly I need only choose two propositions, both of which you'd assign a zero or negligible weight of plausibility and make the same internet argument you made. How about God doesn't exist, and Elvis Presley hasn't died yet?? (you'll find much larger support for the former on the internet)

Originally posted by Rajk999
Luckly you are not the judge. Here is verse which I have quoted to you fundamentalist Christians (who like to condemn the rest of the world) which clearly contradicts your extremist views, but which you have no explanation for,

This verse states in reasonably plain language that there are many without law ie Law of Moses or Law of Christ but who still fol ...[text shortened]... the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. [/quote]

I was asked what I thought and I answered. Yep, I agree everyone is lucky I'm not
the judge.
Kelly

Originally posted by Agerg
There are numerous ways to show your argument here is poor..

Firstly you're commiting the logical fallacy of appealing to numbers. It's a popular fallacy among Christians where they reason that since over a billion people believe in Christian god then there must be more than a grain of truth to it; they forget that over a billion people happen to think Isl ley hasn't died yet?? (you'll find much larger support for the former on the internet)

===================================
Firstly you're commiting the logical fallacy of appealing to numbers.
======================================

That might be true if I was using the argument as proof of Christ being God incarnate. I am not doing that. It is legitimate to ask why there should be a disproportional amount of articles about the Deity of Christ if both are equally believable.

You have provided no insight into this as of yet, unless I see it below.

=======================================
It's a popular fallacy among Christians where they reason that since over a billion people believe in Christian god then there must be more than a grain of truth to it;
=======================================

It is a legitmate concern why the possibility is in far far greater consideration then for Thor, if both are equally plausible.

Addressing the reason for this disproportion is not conceding that there is a God. But addressing it would explain why two equally plausible ideas are so disproportionately considered in the world.

=====================================
they forget that over a billion people happen to think Islamic God is the correct god, not the Christian one.
===================================

Its a point. But you did not say Allah and Jesus. You said Thor and Jesus were equally plausible.

If you want to say now that Allah and Jesus are equally plausible then that seems to admit that Thor is a long shot for the comparison whereas Allah of Islam is a more plausible comparison.

So then why did you use Thor and not Allah of the billions of Moslems ?

The impression you leave is that your real aim was to express contempt for Christ by comparing Him with someone far out of His class.

This is like me saying Winston Churchill and Peewee Herman had an equivalent impact on history in the 20th Century. The net effect is to cast contempt on Churchill. Or perhaps elevate Peewee Herman to be a significant statesman of the 20th century.

=========================================
They also fail to recognise that Christianity owes its high subscription rate due to its legacy of aggressive 'sales tactics' through the dark ages and sheep mentality.
========================================

Okay, if we consider the foolishness of something like the Spanish Inquisition, I think that argues more for the stupidity of man. It does not argue for the unrealisticness of the claims of Jesus. And there is scarce little you could point to out of the mouth of Jesus to prove He taught such violent compulsion.

So such extreme compulsion as say in Salem Witch trials (which didn't convert too many) or the Spanish Inquisition is a comment on the depravity of men perverting the very teaching of Christ.

I don't think such an argument strengthens the idea that Christ being God incarnate is less plausible.

======================================
I can't think of an easy way to explain this one whilst keeping it short enough to hold your attention but I'll try:
===============================

Give it a try. I'll read and consider.

========================================
If a majority of people in some group believe X, then this falsely lends support to an additional member of the group, X is true (and he will appear stupid should he oppose the majority); if this person believes he increases the majority for the next person (who will look slightly more stupid should he oppose this bigger majority), and if this person believes he increases further the majority for the next person (who will look slightly more stupid should he oppose this bigger majority), and so on...
====================================

So if you imply that the "default position" of most people is atheism, how are you not playing that game yourself ?


==========================================
Your religion has been playing this game for about 2000 years (with increasing numbers of groups (of people) every generation), helped along the way in this endeavour with all manner of grizzly atrocities like the crusades etc...
===============================================

You are cleverly shifting from a rather mathematical consideration to an appeal to emotion - "argument by outrage".

I will set aside for the moment "bad things done for Jesus" and the sense of outrage it engenders, and concentrate on your numercial argument. That is greater and greater numbers give rise to greater "peer preasure" to join the large group.

How do I know that an argument of "Atheism is the default position of the world" is not involving the phenomenon you discribe ?

If it is good enough for the spread of belief in God, why isn't it good enough for the spread of disbelief ?

Aren't you saying in essence "You Christians all believe because youre under peer preasure not to look stupid?"

Why can't I do the same - "All you athiests joined the large group of non-believers in God because of peer preasure not to look stupid" ?

===================================
That a billion+ Christians exist now, some of which desiring to indoctrinate the next generation (increasing the number even further) is hardly surprising at all!
======================================

Just as great numbers not necessarily prove the truth of God's existence, a logical fallacy that you spoke of, so great numbers neither prove the untruth of that which is believed.

The logical fallacy of argument based on popularity works both ways.
"Since billions are trying to indoctrinate me, it must not be true that God exists."

I am not trying to indoctrinate you. I am merely pointing out what seems a problem for you is not one for me. Ie. " The human mind cannot contain all the plausible explanations of who and what God may be, so why regard the matter? One does not have enough brain capacity."

===============================================
Secondly I need only choose two propositions, both of which you'd assign a zero or negligible weight of plausibility and make the same internet argument you made. How about God doesn't exist, and Elvis Presley hasn't died yet?? (you'll find much larger support for the former on the internet)
=======================================

I think I made provision for that misunderstanding already. I did say that I would not insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting many hits on the Internet proved that Christ was God incarnate.

Now to the problem of Elvis and Jesus ?

Sure, there are a lot of discussions perhaps, about the music of Elvis. There are probably fewer in which intellectuals of your caliber are arguing why or why not Elvis Presley should be considered God incarnated.

And somehow the words "You Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog" seem somewhat less universally significant to mankind's existence then "Come unto Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

What came out of the two mouths of these two men, Jesus and Elvis, I think are in two different classes of impact on life's meaning.

I think a person who classifies Elvis and Christ as roughly equivalent is befuddled or in some kind of drunken stupor. This is not a sober comparison IMO.

So far in this reply, I think your best bet was to highlight the problems of Allah of the Quran being a serious competitor to Christ as far as a plausible manifestation of God.

But, I know for the new atheist type, Elvis or Thor is much more fun.

Looking again at your conclusion. Maybe I didn't get it at first.

=====================================
Secondly I need only choose two propositions, both of which you'd assign a zero or negligible weight of plausibility and make the same internet argument you made. How about God doesn't exist, and Elvis Presley hasn't died yet?? (you'll find much larger support for the former on the internet)
======================================

The sites that I spoke of in my first argument included arguments FOR and AGAINST the Deity of Jesus.

So I was not just refering to web discussions pro Christian. The point was the number of people wrestling with the problem.

Originally posted by jaywill
That might be true if I was using the argument as [b]proof of Christ being God incarnate. I am not doing that. It is legitimate to ask why there should be a disproportional amount of articles about the Deity of Christ if both are equally believable.

You have provided no insight into this as of yet, unless I see it below.[/b]

What he has shown, is that believability is not necessarily related to the number of believers. So although it is legitimate to ask why there is a disproportional amount of believers, (which is why there is a disproportionate number of articles), it is not legitimate to claim that this is evidence of believability as there are many other possible reasons.

Originally posted by jaywill
The sites that I spoke of in my first argument included arguments FOR and AGAINST the Deity of Jesus.

So I was not just refering to web discussions pro Christian. The point was the number of people wrestling with the problem.

You were able to separate out the sites by those wrestling with the problem? I doubt it.
But regardless, the fact is that the number of sites is due to the large number of followers not because of greater believability. You are just trying to hide the fact that you are arguing based on the number of followers (which you know to be a flawed argument).

Originally posted by twhitehead
What he has shown, is that believability is not necessarily related to the number of believers. So although it is legitimate to ask why there is a disproportional amount of believers, (which is why there is a disproportionate number of articles), it is not legitimate to claim that this is evidence of believability as there are many other possible reasons.

technical mistake.

=====================================
You were able to separate out the sites by those wrestling with the problem? I doubt it.
But regardless, the fact is that the number of sites is due to the large number of followers not because of greater believability. You are just trying to hide the fact that you are arguing based on the number of followers (which you know to be a flawed argument).
=====================================


If I was advocating a pure numerical majority argument the advantage would go to the unbeliever in Christ as God incarnate, not to the believer. The fact still remains that there are probably far more people in the world who would not confess that the man Jesus is God incarnate.

I am satisfied that Agerg has gotten my point. That is because he seemed to revize his comparison of Jesus to Thor with Jesus to Allah.

He therefore indicates that he knows EVERY possible claim to deity is not equally plausible.

That case is closed. He needn't be concerned about running out of brain cells to think about God.

Originally posted by jaywill
=====================================
You were able to separate out the sites by those wrestling with the problem? I doubt it.
But regardless, the fact is that the number of sites is due to the large number of followers not because of greater believability. You are just trying to hide the fact that you are arguing based on the number of follower at case is closed. He needn't be concerned about running out of brain cells to think about God.

Don't agree with your point, Have NOT revised my comparison

Will respond to some of that you posted later on today (need to wake up properly), the same themes are recurrent throughout (and of course, flawed).

Case NOT closed.

Originally posted by jaywill
If I was advocating a pure numerical majority argument.......

What else could you have been advocating?
You said:

But, if Jesus as God is as believable as Thor as God, WHY is there tons more sites discussing Jesus then Thor ?

You didn't say that the sites discussing Jesus were more intellectual than those discussing Thor, you didn't highlight any other differences, you merely claimed that there were significantly more.
There was nothing else to you argument except a pure numerical majority argument which Agerg correctly pointed out is a logical fallacy.