Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Huh?
Premise: Jesus was (and is) who He claimed to be (Lord), or He was a liar or a lunatic.
Premise: Liars and lunatics don't produce enduring legacies of love that produces sweet fruit from those who follow them.
Premise: Jesus produced an enduring legacy of love that produces sweet fruit from those who follow Him.
Conclusion: Jesus was (and is) who He claimed to be (Lord).
Oh, I didn't think you meant that... gosh that's pretty bad LG. If that's the best you have to support your beliefs then it's even worse than I suspected. Let's suppose that we grant that the construct is logically valid, it swiftly falls apart when we check it for truth values.
1) Jesus may not even have existed
2) Jesus may not have said the things attributed to him
3) Jesus may not have done the things attributed to him
4) Liars and lunatics have indeed left enduring legacies of love
5) Jesus may not actually have been responsible for the love, it may have been the authors of the bible
All three of your premises are extremely problematic. It's a very very low standard of evidence for such a hugely important belief system,
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
You mean like science, hospitals, the arts, universities, etc.?
All but two of the first 100+ universities in America were founded as Christian universities (including Harvard).
These things could equally exist in a totalitarian regime intended to further indoctrination among the young and which sought only to perpetuate itself and its doctrines. Which, of course, is what I think actually happened. Islam did the same. The church is actually harmed by general education, not helped. It's notable that the percentage of Christian scientists drops off hugely the more the science they practice has to do with 'earth' type subject like physics, chemistry, and bilology.
But Christianity did not produce 'science', no matter that there are scientists that believe in gods. Science, in ignoring the supernatural and non-physical, is directly in opposition to religious theories. E.g. planes stay up because of properties of physical materials described in physics, chemistry etc, and not because god's giant hands hold them in the sky. If you think 'goddidit' explanations and science are compatible, try to argue the latter hypothesis with a scientist.