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. 😉

Pure Land Buddhism says you can do both

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... ept a pure numerical majority argument which Agerg correctly pointed out is a logical fallacy.

Go back to the post that you lifted your quote from and notice the paragraph immediately proceeding, it which said:

"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.

What is the numerical disproportion of sites being used by me to argue ?

It is not being used to argue that the greater number of sites is proof of Christ being God. The greater number of sites is evidence that both Thor and Christ are not typically considered equally qualified for serious debate about the reality of God.

Atheists who claim things like Thor or worse Speghetti Monster, Leperchauns, Pink Unicorn are as plausible for the position of being God as Jesus are really just putting forth a veiled attempt to show contempt for Christ.

When pushed on the equal plausibility argument they do just what Agerg did. They narrow the problem down to something more realistic.

Ie. "Well, there are plenty of Moslems and plenty of Hindus too."

What happened to plenty of advocates of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or advocates of Thor if they are just as likely competitors ?

Lee Strobol on Ignatius's letters on his way to death for being a Christian.

YouTube

Lee Strobol's take "Well, Why not Islam instead of Jesus Christ?"

YouTube&feature=related

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 ...[text shortened]... 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. It's a popular fallacy among Christians...
That wasn't the argument presented on this thread--- although, even if it was, a fallacy doesn't necessarily do any harm to a position, as it cannot erode or establish the foundation of the same.

However, his statement was in response to your contention that all ideas of a supreme being are equally valid. Since your contention relies on the beliefs of people, his counter cannot be estranged from those same people! Reason demands that if all opinions were equally valid, we ought to see a proportionate representation across the spectrum of those beliefs. When we see instead a field weighted disproportionately (a few with many advocates and many with only a few), reason suggests that perhaps all beliefs are not equally valid... at least, not in the eyes of those who hold them.

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'm not sure what you think the scripture you quoted is saying about one's
sin. Not having the law but having it in their own hearts means simply that
you will set your own standards for yourself. You think anyone will live a life
that is free from doing things they think is wrong? You think anyone outside
of Jesus Christ has lived a sinless life? You think anyone is going to be able
to stand before God in their own righteousness and have God declare them
righteous? All of us have sinned and fallen short, outside of Jesus' grace
you will only find yourself in your own righteousness which is as corrupt as
every other human being.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Firstly you're commiting the logical fallacy of appealing to numbers. It's a popular fallacy among Christians...
That wasn't the argument presented on this thread--- although, even if it was, a fallacy doesn't necessarily do any harm to a position, as it cannot erode or establish the foundation of the same.

However, his statement was in response ...[text shortened]... rhaps all beliefs are not equally valid... at least, not in the eyes of those who hold them.[/b]

It was precisely the argument presented. My own stance that all gods are equiplausible was that which Jaywill sought to crush with a numbers argument (it relies not on all people in this setting, it relies on me!). I'll remind you of the conversation that led us up to it emphasis my own

Jaywill posted

...Out of the possible thousands of claimants who said they were God, Who in human history would you vote for as the one who acted the most like God ?

I think you should have a short list. And the excuse of infinite possibilities, I think, is an artificial delimma.

The key phrase here is "who the most acted like God might be expected to act ?" in your perceptive opinion ?

I responded with

...*edit* Out of courtesy, I cannot think of any god that has been described to me for which I can assign any value of plausibility that is higher than something I could whimsically dream up in my head (your god btw is absurd). I have no shortlist.

He followed up with

...Among voices in this world who even made a claim to be Deity, I think you can arrive at a short list of the voices who demonstrated DEEDS that at least made the claim to being God call for some serious consideration, if one is not too lazy.

Do you mean to imply that history's Jesus Christ is on the same level of plausibility with Julius Ceasar, Nero, or any of the Roman emporers who claimed to be God? Do you class any of the Egyptian pharoahs who claimed divinity for himself to be as plausible as Jesus Christ ?

I think you should be able to arrive at a short list of possibilities to be seriously considered. All may be false gods. But too many candidates, I think, is a false delimma.

Whether that candidate is "mine" or not "mine" is irrelevant

To which my response was

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.

Notice the focus is on me and my own position of belief

Originally posted by jaywill
[what you posted]

===================================
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...

Your argument was not that there are more people who find Jesus with his supposed divine properties more plausible than the existence of Thor, your argument that my personal stance on the matter can be challenged by showing that far more people than the former take the latter seriously. It is an appeal to numbers.

=====================================
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 ?...

My mention of Allah was to show that, right off the bat, your numbers argument is on shaky ground. As for why I used Thor instead of Allah; to have not done something like this would have obscured the essential feature of my position that all gods, are to me, equiplausible

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

My point here was it helps explain one reason, amongst a number of them, how one arrives at the large number of believers we have today.

========================================
If a majority of people in some group believe X, ...[snip]...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 ?

I'm not advancing the argument that greater numbers imply greater truth; you are!

==========================================
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" ?

There is no outrage in my response here, merely stating facts. Again I have no desire to argue my atheism must be correct due to the number of people who hold this position.

===================================
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."...

Again, quit trying to frame the argument you used against me as one that I would use against you. I do not hold it is a valid argument in the first place.

===============================================
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)
=======================================
...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.

As I said above, neglecting Thor in favour of a more popular alternative god would have merely suggested I *do* have a shortlist. I don't...all gods are as likely as the next as far as I'm concerned

Originally posted by Agerg
[quote]===================================
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 ...[text shortened]... on't...all gods are as likely as the next as far as I'm concerned

Whoa.

Yeah...jaywill always keeps things short and to the point.

Dr. Gary Habermas is one Christian apologist who does not start from the assumption that the Bible is a divine book. His approach is purely historical.

Here's a short exchange between him and a critic of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.

YouTube

Dr. Gary Habermas comments on secular sources outside the Christian New Testament on the historical Jesus:

YouTube&feature=related

Another worthwhile debate to watch -

Dr. William Lane Craig makes a case for the Resurrection of Christ.

YouTube&feature=related

Ravi Zacharias on the Hiddeness of God question:

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
Dr. Gary Habermas is one Christian apologist who does not start from the assumption that the Bible is a divine book. His approach is purely historical.

Here's a short exchange between him and a critic of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ

Paul himself states that the scriptures are inspired 2 Tim 3:16,17

Originally posted by darvlay
Hypothetical situation for those of the Christian faith:

A young man is born in the jungle amongst his tribe. He has never heard of Jesus Christ. He dies when he is thirty years old as an upstanding member and leader of his tribe. He still has never heard of Jesus Christ. According to your beliefs, what is the likely destination for his soul?

I believe the word says that God's judgement remains on him. But if he could keep God's law without sinning he should be ok.