the argument is that you define a cycle with > true christian = christian who also lives a righteous and honorable life making what you say into: > christians who live a righteous and honorable life live a righteous and honorable life or, symbolically: > [forall p] good(x) & christian(p) => good(x) which is a tautology and does not prove > [forall p] -christian(x) => -good(x) counterexample: p = bob good(bob) -christian(bob) the escape-hatch is always saying that "true christians" are good because there are non-good christians, and they're a problem. but why wouldn't there be? your mind doesn't instantly become switched out for a perfect god-mind just because you say "i think some guy called jesus died and got resurrected", it just expresses your belief resurrection (like in dnd), or is just some slogan that you say. it's not even moral. it also is actually an expression of faithlessness, since if you believed that jesus spoke the truth, then, since the truth is independent of who says it, then someone could accept the truth of his words without believing in his resurrection specifically. those who claim that one "must believe" in any resurrection are already on the way to disregarding jesus's teachings. also, paul's claim that "he who simply believes is credited" expresses the lowest tier of adherence, i.e. basically believing without fully understanding, but that lowest tier has taken over and denied the other tiers, and now even scoffs at understanding. scoffers have come indeed. scoffers have come indeed. i'll never be converted to anything, by the way, even if i understand that jesus spoke the truth. if i get to any last judgment and it's not just some kangaroo court, and can make a brief statement as the accused, i'll not only argue the truth of jesus's teachings and you people's confusion, but i'll also argue away your guilt... well, see the argument i just provided, i got several thousands of pages more where that came from.
Hungary