another hack "professor" attempts to take down Christianity

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

You think "miracles" are access points to facts and logic? Good luck with that.

That's not what I said, and I don't know whether presuming that you know that good and well or that you don't is more disappointing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course you can't take down religion. It claims to exist in a realm beyond facts and logic.

...no, it claims to provide access to such realm.

You think "miracles" are access points to facts and logic? Good luck with that.

That's not what I said, and I don't know whether presuming that you know that good and well or that you don't is more disappointing.

You think you can seperate Western religion and miracles?

I think I can separate what you apparently read from what my initial response to you actually said.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I never really saw him as trying to "take down" Christianity, only to deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

please don't reproduce

That takes down most of Christianity theologically but is really weak at taking it down culturally.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There is enough evidence for the populace to reject religion.

Evidence of what?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ernest, jmfcst is right about the tense issue (Jesus actually talks about that, by implication, in the 'not of the dead but of the living' part), but obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on re: resurrection with the same old orrery.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ernest, jmfcst is right about the tense issue (Jesus actually talks about that, by implication, in the 'not of the dead but of the living' part), but obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on re: resurrection with the same old orrery.

Jesus' exegesis of Exodus 3:6 is not itself in the Torah, so it can't be used as an argument based on Torah alone, which is what I thought was being discussed.

Well...yes, certainly that's the case, and if jmfcst thinks that the text of the Torah itself specifies (rather than implies) Jesus' exegesis he's gravely mistaken as to the religious history of the Israelites.