It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bibledefender
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.
Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender
I was in the military as well. I spent a lot of time researching this stuff. I've had many discussions about this while living in close quarters with Christians. No debate will change my view on this matter.
Like I said, I'll concede Jesus existed and that he died on the cross, but I will not concede his resurrection. It was unnecessary. God could make every man, woman and child know he exists and loves them without stirring up controversy, war, killing, etc.
Originally posted by bibledefender
Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender
I was in the military as well. I spent a lot of time researching this stuff. I've had many discussions about this while living in close quarters with Christians. No debate will change my view on this matter.
Like I said, I'll concede Jesus existed and that he died on the cross, but I will not concede his resurrection. It was unnecessary. God could make every man, woman and child know he exists and loves them without stirring up controversy, war, killing, etc.
I'm sure you did. Again you are making a-priori conclusions before weighing the evidence. That is not a good way to come to conclusions no matter what field you are in (historically, criminal investigation, or even scientific investigation). Is that how Buddhism works?
Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
That is quite a poor rejoinder. And any first year philosophy student could tear this apart. What should be done is weigh the evidence FIRST before coming to a conclusion.
Originally posted by mkmasn
Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
That is quite a poor rejoinder. And any first year philosophy student could tear this apart. What should be done is weigh the evidence FIRST before coming to a conclusion.
The bible is the only evidence there is. But, if you must know, I've read books by noted atheists, noted Christians, spoken with chaplains, do I need to go on?
And I was a first year Philosophy student. Too many rules to just ask, "why?"
Originally posted by bibledefender
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.