so, you see? ...it's testable, just as you demanded...
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
QED
K. P. COLLINS
Ken Collins wrote in message <#LjuxXB2#GA.287 at cpmsnbbsa03>...
>>Malcolm McMahon wrote in message <379d4968.732142 at news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:35:33 -0400, "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>>Malcolm McMahon wrote in message <379d5d33.13532628 at news.demon.co.uk>...
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>The test, of course, is Popper refutability. If a scientific theory is,
>>>>in fact, wrong then it ought to be possible, at least in principal, to
>>>>disprove it. If you make some technological device based on a falacious
>>>>theory odds are it won't work.
>>>>>>>>This is invariably not the case with religious theories
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>i'll gladly accept, in-person, before fair witnesses, any challenge with
>>>respect to the claims i've made with respect to the Teaching of Jesus.
>>>>>>>So give us, for example, a solid testable (in this world) prediction
>>based on beliefs about Christ.
>>>>there's one in AoK's Epilogue...
>>"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
>>Lincoln invoked such with the end that the Union was preserved - the U. S.
>A. exists, today, as a "mountain" moved (the Union, preserved) in The Name
>of Christ... by Lincoln's Faith.
>>when one looks, though, one sees that Christ's prediction holds True within
>all human dynamics... if you don't think so, try to come up with an
instance
>in which it doesn't hold True.
>>of course, there's much more in the position i've brought up. i hope to
find
>myself, one day, with the opportunity to write a book on the topic...
>there's that much in-it.
>>it's been my experience that the greatest 'difficulty' is usually that the
>folks who don't see what's in this position, are pretty-much unfamiliar
with
>Christ, so it's necessary to, first, familiarize folks with Christ... which
>takes some 'time' (and which, typically, degenerates into 'just' another
>'house divided', with the discussion going nowhere be-cause everyone's
>'discussing' from disparate positions of familiarity)... which is why i
>said, 'in-person, before fair witnesses'... one wouldn't think of doing
>Physics without studying Physics... it's the 'same' with everything about
>Jesus. to gain a working knowledge requires, first, becoming familiar.
>>in-person, before fair witnesses... and, hopefully, folks who, with open
>minds, want to understand.
>>cheers, ken collins
>>
