Comments on: “What Would Convince You” Is The Wrong Question http://fakegod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/what-would-convince-you-is-the-wrong-question/ Don't make me mad!!! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:58:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Precariousness http://fakegod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/what-would-convince-you-is-the-wrong-question/#comment-276 Precariousness Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:13:47 +0000 http://fakegod.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-276 Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway ... nice blog to visit. cheers, Precariousness. Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Precariousness.

]]> By: Cory Tucholski http://fakegod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/what-would-convince-you-is-the-wrong-question/#comment-251 Cory Tucholski Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:36:33 +0000 http://fakegod.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-251 How do we know anything in history? Simple: based on the evidence of written accounts of that history. If the accounts so written are eyewitness accounts, so much the better. The gospels are such historic accounts. Their inclusion in the Bible notwithstanding, they are the best evidence we have for the life of Jesus. So I don't believe this based on blind faith. I believe that the gospels are holy Scripture, sure, but I also believe that they are as useful as any other historical document. Which means, we're back to not believing on blind faith but believing where the evidence leads us. Incidentally, according to your rebuttal, we are required to believe ALL of history on blind faith. Is that what you're saying? How do we know anything in history?

Simple: based on the evidence of written accounts of that history. If the accounts so written are eyewitness accounts, so much the better.

The gospels are such historic accounts. Their inclusion in the Bible notwithstanding, they are the best evidence we have for the life of Jesus.

So I don’t believe this based on blind faith. I believe that the gospels are holy Scripture, sure, but I also believe that they are as useful as any other historical document. Which means, we’re back to not believing on blind faith but believing where the evidence leads us.

Incidentally, according to your rebuttal, we are required to believe ALL of history on blind faith. Is that what you’re saying?

]]> By: fakegod http://fakegod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/what-would-convince-you-is-the-wrong-question/#comment-248 fakegod Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:59:26 +0000 http://fakegod.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-248 Cory, Thanks for popping by - it's always fun having a mortal challenging Me, the almighty, all-knowing, always right and modest perfection that is Me. Let's just test your proposition. You claim that you believe: #1. in the Resurrection as a historical truth #2. which means that the divine claims of Jesus are right #3. that means that Jesus is God’s only Son #4. and that means that He is our Lord rather than just a liar or a lunatic. The evidence upon which you believe #1 - the "Resurrection as is a historical truth" is grounded in an artifact known as the Bible (a bestselling book you truly believe I wrote via my mortal helpers a while ago). It is a matter of faith that you know this as a historical truth because there is no evidence that could be presented to you that you could accept to prove otherwise (please convince Me otherwise on this point - is there <em>any thing</em> that would change your mind on this?*). This belief is based on a blind faith (regardless of when I invented faith). And I thank you for having this blind faith that is necessary in order to lead you to have the other kind of faith (that I also invented). Given that you believe #1 as a matter of blind faith you can therefore believe #2, which leads you to the belief #3, then to #4. And of course, you are quite right to do so. I accept your apology. FG. * There answer had better be no... Cory,

Thanks for popping by - it’s always fun having a mortal challenging Me, the almighty, all-knowing, always right and modest perfection that is Me.

Let’s just test your proposition. You claim that you believe:

#1. in the Resurrection as a historical truth
#2. which means that the divine claims of Jesus are right
#3. that means that Jesus is God’s only Son
#4. and that means that He is our Lord rather than just a liar or a lunatic.

The evidence upon which you believe #1 - the “Resurrection as is a historical truth” is grounded in an artifact known as the Bible (a bestselling book you truly believe I wrote via my mortal helpers a while ago). It is a matter of faith that you know this as a historical truth because there is no evidence that could be presented to you that you could accept to prove otherwise (please convince Me otherwise on this point - is there any thing that would change your mind on this?*). This belief is based on a blind faith (regardless of when I invented faith). And I thank you for having this blind faith that is necessary in order to lead you to have the other kind of faith (that I also invented).

Given that you believe #1 as a matter of blind faith you can therefore believe #2, which leads you to the belief #3, then to #4. And of course, you are quite right to do so.

I accept your apology.

FG.

* There answer had better be no…

]]> By: Cory Tucholski http://fakegod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/what-would-convince-you-is-the-wrong-question/#comment-247 Cory Tucholski Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:20:49 +0000 http://fakegod.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-247 Actually, Fake God, I thought you knew that the biblical definition of "faith" is much different than the modern definition of faith. When we think of faith in the modern sense, we think of "blind faith," but in the time when the Bible was written, faith was <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html" rel="nofollow">loyalty based on past performance</a>. Your whole piece here assumes that I, the true believer, just believe without reason. That is wrong. I believe in the Resurrection as a historical truth, which means that the divine claims of Jesus are right--that means that Jesus is God's only Son, and that means that He is our Lord rather than just a liar or a lunatic. If God raised His Son from the dead, and has also promised to raise us from the dead, then I believe it <b>based on this evidence</b>, not on blind faith. Actually, Fake God, I thought you knew that the biblical definition of “faith” is much different than the modern definition of faith. When we think of faith in the modern sense, we think of “blind faith,” but in the time when the Bible was written, faith was loyalty based on past performance. Your whole piece here assumes that I, the true believer, just believe without reason. That is wrong. I believe in the Resurrection as a historical truth, which means that the divine claims of Jesus are right–that means that Jesus is God’s only Son, and that means that He is our Lord rather than just a liar or a lunatic.

If God raised His Son from the dead, and has also promised to raise us from the dead, then I believe it based on this evidence, not on blind faith.

]]>