What is the point of this line of questioning, Randy?  That people can be compelled to lie when threatened?

Do you have the first idea how insulting this line you're taking really is?

Can we just cut to the punchline? I think it's been established that they stand by their experiences.

You need to rephrase that question. It makes absolutely no sense as phrased.

(June 6, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: What is the point of this line of questioning, Randy?  That people can be compelled to lie when threatened?

Do you have the first idea how insulting this line you're taking really is?

(June 6, 2015 at 7:06 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You need to rephrase that question. It makes absolutely no sense as phrased.

Sorry. I'm simply asking if you would ever deny your experience regardless of threat?

And how would you react if someone did not believe what you wrote in your post and said it was not true?

(June 6, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Sorry. I'm simply asking if you would ever deny your experience regardless of threat?

And how would you react if someone did not believe what you wrote in your post and said it was not true?

What the hell are you even angling at, here?

Okay.

The answer is yes. I am not going to stick by my guns, even if it is my truth, if the only outcome is my family getting hurt.

If I can judge that the threat is real, I have no pride hangup in allowing a person to think they've won so long as my family or my person is safe.

(June 6, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 6, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: What is the point of this line of questioning, Randy?  That people can be compelled to lie when threatened?

Do you have the first idea how insulting this line you're taking really is?

(June 6, 2015 at 7:06 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You need to rephrase that question. It makes absolutely no sense as phrased.

Sorry. I'm simply asking if you would ever deny your experience regardless of threat?

Beats the fuck outta me.

(June 6, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And how would you react if someone did not believe what you wrote in your post and said it was not true?

Pointing and laughing would be a good start.

(June 6, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: What is the point of this line of questioning, Randy?  That people can be compelled to lie when threatened?

Do you have the first idea how insulting this line you're taking really is?

(June 6, 2015 at 7:17 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Okay.

The answer is yes. I am not going to stick by my guns, even if it is my truth, if the only outcome is my family getting hurt.

If I can judge that the threat is real, I have no pride hangup in allowing a person to think they've won so long as my family or my person is safe.

Okay. Parkers Tan is offiline, but I think we can agree that he would respond about the same as you.

So, let's recap: Parkers, Steel and CD have all had personal experiences and witnessed things they they know to be true. CD even says that Kitty was an eyewitness and will vouch for him. Each of you three has written - briefly - of your experience. 

I never denied any of your accounts. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would testify under oath under penalty of perjury. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote under any threat - even prison or death. All three of you said yes.

If I had asked, all three of you (plus Kitty) would have said that what you wrote is an accurate account of what you saw with your own eyes and experienced personally.

You even have other members of the forum attacking me on your behalf because they are convinced of your reputation; they do not doubt your testimony because they believe you to be honest men. So, they believe what you wrote to be true on the basis of your character, your general reliability.

And I suspect that if you could, you would have decked me for even callilng any of this into question. Agreed?

So, all in all, I think it would be reasonable for me to conclude that what each of you wrote is true - at least more likely than not.

Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

What on earth does that have to do with the assertion that we were responding to?

Or can you just not help yourself when presented an opportunity to proselytize?

Go fuck yourself, Randy.

(June 6, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

Seriously? That was your big point? I had suspected, when you first started, but I had hoped otherwise; I guess you just decided to ignore the entirety of your own thread on the reliability of the new testament, then? Hardly surprising, for one so dishonest.

Okay, so here's the difference, oh king of equivocations: The people of this forum are people you can talk to, people whose identities are confirmed, who are currently alive to confirm their experiences and, in many cases, have had their identities confirmed visually by others here. The gospel authors, by contrast, were anonymous, the names on the books added later by people in no position to know, and regardless of your baseless, fiat assertions of certainty, the scholarly consensus, from people actually studying these things, disagrees.

You also have no idea, by that token, whether they endured any form of torture or threats, but even if they did, so what? People can endure those things and still be mistaken; the martyrs of every other religion are testament to that, if we are to take christianity as true.

That the early church fathers vouched for the character of the people who happened to confirm what they already believed, and would keep them seated in a position of power, is immaterial; their bias is obvious.

Given the above, and the supernatural nature of the claims, in a world where the supernatural hasn't even been demonstrated as possible, it is not reasonable at all to accept that what they wrote about Jesus was true. Hell, even if we lived in a world where the supernatural had been demonstrated as possible, we still could not say more than that the authors believed what they wrote... and possibly not even that, given the severe lack of evidence in support of either conclusion.

Which, of course, is all secondary to the main point, which is that you are only pretending that you know who the authors of the gospel are. Whether consciously or not, I don't care; you have no good reason to believe the authors are the ones on the epigraphs.

We had to spend a day contorting ourselves through these ridiculous games for this? Really?

Are we going to get an apology for the insane overreach with which you began this stillbirth of an argument? Or are you going to stick to your dishonesty guns to the last?