Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You must disbelieve an awful lot of history then, huh?
Pro-life and Democrat
- Thread starter A-Scholten
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Why aren't there smartphone camera pix of Christ's Resurrection available?
One order of healthy skepticism, plain....to go please.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
'Nothing wrong with that. But you did just say that you don't accept hearsay evidence, and that is what our 'knowledge' of history is largely based upon. So why is rejecting Christ's Resurrection 'healthy skepticism?'
For the same reasoning I reject "Allāhu akbar".
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You're not trying to draw a parallel between Kamikazes and martyrs, right?
Only when you attempt to justify a differentiation by way of (relative) hearsay.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok, you told us what you wouldn't accept
how about telling us what you would accept?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Verifiable, unbiased evidence for resurrection would be good for starters.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
in what manner, considering it was 2000 years ago
do you hold any other historical event to the same standards?
supra
again, what would you accept for a similarly distant event?
give me a specific, concrete example of what you would find persuasive
Given that the resurrection of Jesus was a one-off event, specific and essential to Christian lore, seems all the more evident of myth rather than fact. I'm sure you're hard-pressed to find any current examples.
By contrast, Washington crossing the Delaware (to give an historical example) is a touch more plausable...a touch less numinous.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and yet, your knowledge of it is based on hearsay evidence and the desire by many patriots to magnify Washington's persona, to mythologize his military service
Sure. It could all be BS. Your point?
"I'm pro-life but a democrat" means that, everything else being equal, I would prefer a democratic politician who is anti-abortion to a democratic politician who is not anti-abortion; however, I recognize that, in the United States, which is a representative democratic republic, we vote for candidates, not policies, and candidates are package deals.
Yes, Republicans are better on abortion, but they are terrible on virtually every other issue, whether we're talking about taxes, healthcare, foreign policy, regulation, etc.
Furthermore, it's misleading to call Republicans "pro-life." They only care about human beings until they are born; if anything, they oppose policies which would discourage women from having abortions (e.g., a strong social safety net) and are in favor of policies which would encourage women to have abortions (e.g., cutting the social safety net).
Many women have abortions out of economic despair.
I would rather vote for a candidate who is nominally in favor of legalized abortion, but is in favor of economic policies which would ultimately lead to women having fewer abortions, than a candidate who is nominally against legalized abortion (though either can or will do very little to criminalize abortion), but otherwise champions policies which would ultimately lead to women having more abortions.
Yes, Republicans are better on abortion, but they are terrible on virtually every other issue, whether we're talking about taxes, healthcare, foreign policy, regulation, etc.
Furthermore, it's misleading to call Republicans "pro-life." They only care about human beings until they are born; if anything, they oppose policies which would discourage women from having abortions (e.g., a strong social safety net) and are in favor of policies which would encourage women to have abortions (e.g., cutting the social safety net).
Many women have abortions out of economic despair.
I would rather vote for a candidate who is nominally in favor of legalized abortion, but is in favor of economic policies which would ultimately lead to women having fewer abortions, than a candidate who is nominally against legalized abortion (though either can or will do very little to criminalize abortion), but otherwise champions policies which would ultimately lead to women having more abortions.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's not just 'specific and essential to Christian lore.' If Christ's Resurrection is a fact of history, nonfiction event, then bona fide Christianity itself is confirmed; roots, fruits, and all. Slam dunk, 100% factual, put-it-in-the-physics-textbooks reality. That's not the same as 'specific and essential to Christian lore.' If the Resurrection is a fact, then we Christians are right, and everything authentically Christian is Also confirmed true, undisputed reality.
iow, Christ's Resurrection is not just a facet or tenet of Christianity; faith in the Resurrection, which is celebrated every Easter, Is Christianity. It is more, but never less than this.
And yet the fact of the matter is that for both the Resurrection, and for Washington crossing the Delaware, equally, they either happened, or they did not happen. You pick.
need God to justify others worth
Only because they want and get the sucker vote. Why would those who want the most for themselves be for anything which might increase social service spending?
It has nothing to do with me. This is one confusion aimed to debase me, yet only bores me.
I do not really care what you think I am :idunno: