You are arguing when this "Christ" is believed to be reappearing. In other words, arguing a non event and cowardice to say you are not arguing the historicity of this entity. You are arguing, and misleading, for their own sakes when you have no proof about any of it. BT, I did "spell it out" but you refuse to comprehend it.
I am not arguing the historicity of Jesus. My point would stand just as well, regardless of whether Jesus exists or does not. My point is about Bricklayer's view of what makes evidence sufficient. I have taken great care to make sure that my argument doesn't rely on Jesus existing or not existing, so that it cannot be dismissed by just reverting to one's conviction in that matter and thus avoid my actual argument.
Thought I finally SPOTTED the baby jesus near Cape Cod last summer, brick!!! http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/looking-for-mr-god.541431/#post-1069600252
Again, this does very little to address my actual point. If generation upon generation have been wrong in determining the return of Christ, why/how would you call the evidence they relied upon sufficient?
I don't agree with you. I don't believe that "generation upon generation have been wrong in determining the return of Christ". I believe that generation after generation were correct to determine that the circumstances were in place for Christ's return. Furthermore, I believe that each successive generation has had even more reason to determine that the circumstances were sufficient for Christ's return. I have reason to believe that future generations will have even more reasons to determine that the circumstances are present sufficient for Christ's return. Temperatures below freezing are sufficient for snow, but it does not "determine" the return of snow.
I don't care about the "circumstances being in place for Christ's return", I'm talking about your statement below: They may or may not have been right about the circumstances being right (that would be a way longer discussion, which would also hinge on many other answers which I'm sure we would not agree upon), but my argument refers directly to whether Christ will return (or, in the case of past generations, did return). It seems to me, all or most of those generations were incorrect. Thus, I struggle to see how whatever evidence they referred to can be viewed as sufficient.
A temperature below freezing, among other things, is a circumstance in place for snow's return. One is quite certain to be wrong in any attempt to predict the time of Christ's return. In fact, I am left to believe that He will return at a time that no one predicts even if many at that time believe that the circumstances (or what the bible refers to as the season) are in place. In my opinion, if someone predicts a particular time, Jesus will not return at that time; one is safe in checking that particular time off of their list of potential times.
I do not understand why you keep bringing up "circumstances". I'm not talking to you about someone believing that the right circumstances are in place, I am talking about people believing that Jesus Christ would return. Not whether the circumstances are right. If generation upon generation have been wrong in determining the return of Christ, why/how would you call the evidence they relied upon sufficient?
I don't infer that. I can see how you can, but I don't see it that way. I see it the way the bible phrases it. The bible says that we can know the "season" but not the date. I don't think they were wrong as long as they did not try to determine more than the bible implies can be known.
Jesus himself said that nobody but himself and God -- and one presumes the Holy Spirit -- would know when it would happen. Technically his statement trumps -- heh -- all other statements and assumptions. If one is a believer, then it happens when it happens and meanwhile it's the believer's duty to be the best Christian possible. If one is not a believer then none of it matters anyway.
You don't infer what? If you are referring to this sentence: then it does seem like you do infer that. If you refer to any other sentence, then you're answering a question I'm not asking again.
When it is below freezing and the season is such, I have good reason to believe that it will snow. That doesn't mean that wrong about it eventually snowing, even if it doesn't snow for the rest of my life. It will snow. It will happen when the conditions are right, even if those conditions come and go many times without snowing. Those are the conditions under which it will snow, and it will snow.
Faulty logic. If the climate change advocates are correct then it will never snow again. at would prove your statement to be false, just like the return of this "Christ" you continue to worry about.
That seems incorrect to me. There are many times when it has been cold, below freezing, but it did not snow. Clearly, in order not to be wrong, it being cold is not sufficient evidence to believe that it will snow.
Not to mention all of the times that it has snowed at forty degrees or higher. ems t deny the premise that it has to be below freezing to snow.
I hope Christ does not return for a very long time. We have much left to do! An entire universe which we havn't begun to explore yet. It would be like a teenager retiring to a home after starting college.
Perhaps that's just a misinterpretation. He said "this generation", but this generation from what? You have to look at the context in which he said it. It sounds like what he's actually saying is that all those things predicted will happen well within the timespan of a single generation.
Yes, I'm happy enough to believe that it can, but it's not enough to believe that it will or that it did. The conditions being right and the thing actually happening are different things. I'm asking about the latter and you're telling me about the former. If you believe that A will happen, and then it did not happen, then you were wrong, and whatever reason you had for believing it was wrong (or in this case, at least insufficient). That is regardless of whatever conditions may have been in place.
