Praying For Those Who Are Not Saved (best, history, according)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether I believe it or not makes no difference. The writings claim to be from Peter & John, who walked with Jesus. If you want me to believe that's false, you need to give me a good reason.
If it makes no difference to you whether you believe it, why does anyone "need" to give you proof?
If it makes no difference then it makes no difference. Right?
Methinks it DOES make a difference. To you. You are seriously invested in believing to the point of literally turning reasonable debate tactics entirely around (i.e. the burden of proof, according to you, is not on the person making the assertion.) It is VERY VERY important to you. It makes a VERY BIG difference to you. It makes enough of a difference that you will literally put your fingers in your ears and "la-la-la" away logic and reason of any kind, regarding this subject.
You said I "need" to prove they aren't true, which assumes the default is that they're true.
I repeat that you calling these only claims - ergo, not proven - is a correct assumption on your part; indeed, it's the only assumption we could possibly have.
Now that we have straightened that out, if it is important to you that people accept these writings as accurate then the burden is on you to prove them as being truthful and accurate.
Otherwise, if you don't mind that a huge chunk of people realize it's utter balderdash until proven in some way just as any not-yet-substantiated claim can not be believed until proven, we're all good and there actually is no problem here. We have come to an agreement.
If it makes no difference to you whether you believe it, why does anyone "need" to give you proof?
If it makes no difference then it makes no difference. Right?
Methinks it DOES make a difference. To you. You are seriously invested in believing to the point of literally turning reasonable debate tactics entirely around (i.e. the burden of proof, according to you, is not on the person making the assertion.) It is VERY VERY important to you. It makes a VERY BIG difference to you. It makes enough of a difference that you will literally put your fingers in your ears and "la-la-la" away logic and reason of any kind, regarding this subject.
You don't, unless you're going to tell me the authorship that's listed is wrong.
You said I "need" to prove they aren't true, which assumes the default is that they're true.
I repeat that you calling these only claims - ergo, not proven - is a correct assumption on your part; indeed, it's the only assumption we could possibly have.
Now that we have straightened that out, if it is important to you that people accept these writings as accurate then the burden is on you to prove them as being truthful and accurate.
Otherwise, if you don't mind that a huge chunk of people realize it's utter balderdash until proven in some way just as any not-yet-substantiated claim can not be believed until proven, we're all good and there actually is no problem here. We have come to an agreement.
I don't care what you think, until you tell me the authorship listed is incorrect. If you want me to believe you, you need to show me why.
You don't, unless you're going to tell me the authorship that's listed is wrong.
Or unless you're going to tell me it's right.
Which is what Christianity has been doing for going on a millennium so far, with not always wonderful and more than occasionally authoritative, law-changing, life-changing and once in a while (during the Middle Ages, a LOT of once in a whiles), murderous results. But for now, just attempted law-changing, attempted bad science teaching to kids, attempted forcing of people to do or not do medical things to their own bodies, constant proselytizing, and all that sort of lighter-than-murder stuff.
That's why if you're going to say "it's true!" or even "let's just go on the assumption that it's true," you're the one who better provide proof.
Because if you can't then your religion has NO place in MY (or anyone's, except by direct, individual choice) law, overwhelming culture, schools, "moral code," or body. Zero.
If you can't then your religion is just a personal belief in the supernatural absolutely no different from Hinduism, belief in Thor, or belief in The Dead Files and Haunted Collector....in which case, y'all just sit down and shut up, please. The rest of us have had 2000 years of it. And that's plenty.
Believe based on no proof all by yourself, quietly OR prove what you say you "believe" is actually true. There ya go, choose one!
I don't care what you think, until you tell me the authorship listed is incorrect. If you want me to believe you, you need to show me why.
I don't care what you think either, until you prove to me the authorship listed is correct. Or until your "beliefs" try, once again, as they always do, to infiltrate my body, my laws, my children's schools, current science, etc., etc. That's when I care and that's when I stop you. If you want me to believe you, you need to show me why.
You seem REALLY interested in something you claim not to be interested in: what anybody thinks of the authorship of Peter and John. You are certainly a dog with a bone about something that you really don't care much about, LOL.
I don't care what you think either, until you prove to me the authorship listed is correct. Or until your "beliefs" try, once again, as they always do, to infiltrate my body, my laws, my children's schools, current science, etc., etc. That's when I care and that's when I stop you. If you want me to believe you, you need to show me why.
You seem REALLY interested in something you claim not to be interested in: what anybody thinks of the authorship of Peter and John. You are certainly a dog with a bone about something that you really don't care much about, LOL.
Well, you were the first to tell me Peter and John were not NT writers, post #279. Therefore, it is you who needs to show proof of your assertion.
Well, you were the first to tell me Peter and John were not NT writers, post #279. Therefore, it is you who needs to show proof of your assertion.
Nope! In post #279 I said likely. I neither supported them as the authors, nor definitively ruled them out.
You are just so interested in this thing you aren't interested in...
This thing that just doesn't make a difference certainly appears to make a difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are seriously invested in believing to the point of literally turning reasonable debate tactics entirely around (i.e. the burden of proof, according to you, is not on the person making the assertion.) It is VERY VERY important to you. It makes a VERY BIG difference to you. It makes enough of a difference that you will literally put your fingers in your ears and "la-la-la" away logic and reason of any kind, regarding this subject.
The rest of us have had 2000 years of it. And that's plenty.
