To: @leibowde84 , @SkepticThinker , @Monk Of Reason , @Guy Threepwood , @Shad , The site has again deleted all your recent alerts except for the latest one from @viole that I had not gotten to lately. Again I apologize as I think all posters deserve responses even if it is to end a debate or even to inform them they will be placed on my ignore list. I have again petitioned the staff for an explanation for this and await their response. In the mean time if I missed something you wished me to respond to just give me the post number in a private message and I will get to it.
Viole if your alert is not deleted as well while I am at lunch I will get to it as soon as I can.
I have had my own issues with alerts but for different reasons. It is not your fault but a limitation of software and the website.
Yes you do, to know why I am here is a claim to knowledge. A claim to knowledge bears the burden of evidence.. In this case the evidence of what is going on in my brain concerning my motivation. You have zero access to it and there no basis on which to make the claim. Since everything you said after relied on the credibility of a claim that has none it requires no response. Shad I do not know you personally and can make no judgment about you as a person but your arguments are of the type I consider to waste time, and I have little of it these days. I have had a few breaks today so let me address a couple of your claims.
Negative as your comments can be used as evidence. Your comments give anyone reading a glimpse at your thinking.
1. All my claims were based on evidence. Evidence being data that which included makes a hypothesis more likely than it's exclusion. I did that both with historical claims about Jesus most NT historians agree are true and for the cosmological argument with every atom in the universe.
You have presented an ideology of a brand of Christianity as all of Christianity. It is evidence only for your brand not the whole religion. Most historians only thin Jesus existed. The religious views from NT scholars goes beyond the little which can even be compared to contemporary sources in which none support anything more that a person named Jesus lived and died. None of his miracles, divine claims, etc. You also cited zero sources to back up what you called evidence in posts to me.
The cosmological argument is not an argument for God. It is adapted as one but not once in it's basic form does it pin down what the cause is. People only speculate the cause is God, nothing more. Your speculation is irrelevant to the core of the argument.
2. I have no brand of Christianity. I simply quoted what the bible (Christ) himself said is such emphatic ways and so often that they form their own doctrine. I have never made a claim to having any personal doctrines to offer to Christianity. However I did back up my "interpretation" of verses that are so straightforward interpretation is not even necessary with verses and the philosophy behind them.
Your brand is typical Evangelical Protestant and Baptist Christianity due to the emphasis on the born again concept which is not as important in Catholicism You interpreted verses in a certain way which gives away your particular brand of Christianity. Whereas in Catholicism one can be baptist, born again, but lose salvation but rejecting the Church. IE Protestants are not saved since they do not acknowledge the Catholic Church. Hence one can already rule out various ideologies within Christianity in order to pin down your brand. You certainly are not Catholic
Exactly how much interpretation does "
New International Version
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again." require?.
Kingdom of God has several different interpretation in itself thus changes how one interprets John 3:3. For some this is just simple Baptism. However you are using this verse in support of your idea that once one is "born again" they are saved regardless of their later disbelief and by default rejection of the meaning of Baptism and salvation. So clearly you are using the verse to support something the verse never says. Point out the verse in which one can be a Christian, leaves the faith, disbelief in the whole religion and still be saved.
As a bonus the preceding verses and following verses show he was talking to a high priest who was not corrupt, but a good, honest God seeking, man, that had not even grasped the entry point of faith in Christ. However another prophecy has a shadowy presence here as well. Nicodemus was actually seeking God sincerely. As prophecied centuries before made by Jeremiah "You will me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". Now here he sat talking to God himself.
Which is irrelevant as you were using the verse to support a particular claim you made which is not supported by the verse. You are focusing on "born again" while ignoring the claims you made. See above
However I do not wish to continue a debate with you right now. You don't debate you assume the position of dismissal by any means (mostly by appealing to fallacies which only apply to claims of absolute fact which goes without saying men of faith don't often make) necessary to whatever I say or might say. I recognize the style very well, I used to use it when I was not merely an atheist but an anti-theist. Your responses are word fights, but I am interested in a debate.
Post this tripe when you do not ignore the actual point of conflict I had with your claim rather than a particular concept within it. You ignored my actual point so either you do not read what people post or you make up red herrings in your mind as posts of other people. See above
Lay off concerning me for a bit and maybe we can try again some time.
If you can actually stay and understand the point of conflict/contention sure. However you are not able to do so. Which is not a problem I have but one of your own.
