Why be good?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I started that set up at 8:00am this morning, I checked all the way to the river. I played my hand perfectly. You were all in, and I took your stacks.

Now, if you begrudgingly get that, then a tip o'the cap out of respect, ya know? 

While you're still cursing me, you haven't even begun to address the implications of the analogy I just suckered you into.

Oh, I get it. I simply reject it as so inapt that it bespeaks a simpleton's mind. You apparently don't know the difference between verifiable information and argumentum ex culo.

You folks make all kinds of truly pathetic arguments against the gospels, but when I turn the tables on you to demonstrate dramatically how and why your arguments fail (and more importantly, why we can believe the gospels), you have nothing but epithets. And no chips.

Yeah, no. You'll need to learn how to draw appropriate parallels for that "stratagem" to work (I put that in quotes because this really looks like an attempt to paper over a flawed argument).

 

But if you don't get it, then I suggest you read the post where I turned over my cards again. And again. Until you do.

The four gospels were written by folks who were being just as sincere and and honest as all of you were when you wrote about your personal experiences with "atheists in foxholes". And just as I can believe what you wrote is true - just as anyone else can believe what you wrote is true - with a degree of probability, so can you believe the writing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I gave you links to my discharge paperwork, which verified my decorations which I displayed, and a link to the first Class A I worked. I've got more if you'd like.

Now, whaddya have for evidence of the NT?

Oh, that's right. You don't have jack-shit.

And you're not even intelligent enough to see that crucial distinction.