Posted on 07/25/2016 10:51:24 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Actually, you are 100% WRONG. You do NOT know what you are talking about. Christianity is based on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It was that way from the very start and it continues today. That is the reason why I believe it. The historical documents of the New testament have MUCH more reliability than ANY other ancient documents.
There is MUCH EVIDENCE to believe in Christianity. Simon Greenleaf, the professor who made Harvard Law School famous wrote a 3-volume treatise on how to judge evidence in a court of law (which was considered the standard for over 50 years in both the USA and Europe). He looked at the historical evidence for the resurrection and became so convinced of its truthfulness that he wrote a short booklet on it. He knew how to judge evidence. The historical evidence goes AGAINST your FAITH that the resurrection did not occur.
The Tomb is empty...
Lol! Where did you EVER get the absurd idea that I deny the Resurrection!? Far from it, I have argued that Faith allows — even DEMANDS — that you believe in things you cannot conceive.
If you think you can REASON your way to God, it is YOU who is deluded.
Absolutely. You see, the Apostles dreamed of being like J.P Morgan and Andrew Carnegie, but sadly they had to settle on holding all things in common and eventual martyrdom.
Please think again, and do not mock as though to conflate a self glorification model with a capital model.
Enterprises were not foreign to Christian practice, though; Paul had a pretty decent tent business. I’m sure he donated whatever he cleared after expenses, but it was voluntary.
Reason needs premises. We can certainly show the revelation of God (as it actually is presented, and not some theological reductions of it) to be plausible by means of reason. Actually getting to a personal acceptance requires a personal encounter, not just a theory.
It's pretty stupid to call him a capitalist.
It isn’t, it is accurately observational.
To “worship the capital” is a secular notion. Other aspects of capitalism comport quite well with Judeo-Christian notions.
Nothing wrong in mocking completely stupid rhetoric.
Another error would be to paint my comments as saying a person like Paul self identified as “a capitalist.” That’s how citizens of the world, not the next world, talk.
He “practiced” capitalism. He had access to the resources to succeed in a commercial enterprise and used them wisely. He was also willing, however, to leave them all behind when the good Lord wanted him to do something else.
Then I should mock yours, if that is true.
Yeah, he was just like JP Morgan or Steve Jobs. What a moronic comment.
By the way, oh so very wise one, look at what Donald Trump is getting ready to do.
Do you think he is going to be managing his capital empire if elected? He does get to keep it, but it now has to go into a trust to avoid conflict of interest. He cannot work both the levers of his political stewardship and his capital stewardship, at the same time.
I.e. he is forced by mission to lay down even an earthly mantle of “capitalist.”
Sound a little like the story of Jesus?
You’re the one with silly strawmen here.
You raise idiotic strawmen, expect to get assiduously mocked for it.
You're quite mad.
Stark must be ignoring Jean Calvin’s major contribution to the development of capitalism which was to correct the Church’s prohibition on earning interest on lending money. This opened the door for banking.
The Catholic Church had been prohibiting the practice but the biblical texts they had used to justify that simply prohibited lending to the needy and not taking advantage of their plight, it didn’t prohibit lending to others.
The Catholic Church had been borrowing their ideas about lending from Aristotle or Plato, who believed that ‘money was sterile’ and therefore couldn’t be expected to produce interest, a common misperception among those who don’t understand a flow and quantity of money.
“But one thing needs to be emphasized: the misnomer of the “Dark Ages”.”
You would likely enjoy the writing of Christopher Dawson and that of Stanley Jaki.
Those who choose your position end up running into Goedel’s Theorem and needing to explain where and what exactly is the outside source that all rational systems necessarily end up needing to borrow from. And how that borrowing differs appreciably from other sorts of faith.
What outside source am I borrowing reason from? I’m eschewing reason, not endorsing it. I’m divorcing Faith from Reason, and from the necessity for Reason.
Why? What does Goedel's theorem have to do with this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.