Why be good?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here, I'll play:

Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

Because unlike our experiences, they aren't verifiable.

Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Because if push comes to shove, you could get hold of the Reserve records for his branch of service and verify his service -- including his presence in combat -- from their records. You could also find his squad-mates and interview them.

Can you explain what makes YOUR write up of YOUR personal experiences more believable than theirs?

Because claiming to have been in combat -- or in my case, to have gone into the danger of a working fire -- is much more believable than claiming to have been the son of God.

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than this one that you're mounting, Pigeon.