Recent content by Algernon

lol.

Let's see. Now you're asserting that that you did not "endorse that doctrine per se", even though you've written things such as "It's plainly a true doctrine". Plus even here you wrote " take me to be merely saying that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention...

Let's see. You asserted that the doctrine of original sin is "plainly true, once secularized". The only thing that you offered to back up the assertion is the following: "The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind...

Let's see what you wrote: "It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised. The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it...

No doubt that there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian. How is it reasonable to extrapolate from that to the doctrine of original sin?

You're telling me to "just stop"? Even this is a straw man wrapped in a red herring. You're free to stop with the logical fallacies at any time now. Pay attention to what you wrote: "Right now, I can only say I have an intuitive sense that the argument can be made; but, I haven't nailed it...

Obviously you don't know how to "avoid" begging the question in your underlying premises. I placed the following in bold in the post of yours that I quoted: "Right now, I can only say I have an intuitive sense that the argument can be made; but, I haven't nailed it down. The basic idea is that...

You stated the "basic idea" which is the "underlying premise". The underlying premise assumes the conclusion. When the underlying premise of an argument is logically fallacious, so too will be whatever argument you derive from it. Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Even if you are able to reframe #3 into something palatable, your underlying premise is logically fallacious in that it assumes the conclusion. In other words, only those who believe that those "three observations" reasonably lead to "an acknowledge of God" will be lead to an acknowledgement of...

What a profoundly vacuous post. You may just as well have written, "Is not. Is not." Nothing like the enticement of a "free gift" to blind people. Never ceases to amaze me how many so willingly buy into the Pauline gospel in lieu of the gospel preached by Jesus. And yet many of them call...

Has it not occurred to you that the claim that "Jesus made Paul an apostle" came from Paul rather than Jesus? Why do youu choose to follow Paul rather than Jesus? "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last...

Paul claimed a lot of things that fly in the face of the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel. Why do you choose to place the words of those other than Jesus above His words? "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will...

Paul may have call it the "Spirit of Christ", but Jesus called it the "Spirit of truth" - which was one point. Another point was that what I quoted from John 14 shows that one must first keep Jesus' commandments/words before receiving the Spirit of truth - not "first have the Spirit of Christ"...

"First have the 'Spirit of Christ'"? It's an interesting thought , but not according to Jesus. John 14 15“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16“And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the...

Can you explicitly state your points? It's as if you believe that what you infer from a single line of a prayer suggested by Jesus somehow makes null and void what Jesus explicitly states in Luke 13:23-28. Similarly with your example of Peter. Neither of your inferences make logical sense. The...