Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

The all powerful Judeo-Christian god, the ancient Canaanite war god, the supposed creator of the universe, did not lift one finger to save nine people in a church, IN A CHURCH, HIS CHURCH, from a white racist asshole.   There is some evidence for you.  What is one to think?  Either this supposed being does not exist, or it is a monster, or a racist, or both.

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? - Romans 8:32


Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. - Psalm 116:15

Ooo, eee, ooo ah ah, ting tang, walla walla bing bang - The Witch Doctor

[Minimalist]

-Gospel of Mark -not until around 70

You know what is really amusing about that, LfC, is that the primary reason for dating "mark" around 70 is because that's when Jerusalem was sacked by Titus and the temple burned, according to Josephus.  Scholars who use the 70 AD date don't accept the idea that "jesus" could "prophecise" the destruction of the temple but at the same time still insist that the fucker climbed out of his grave and flew up to fucking heaven.

Being a theologian means convincing yourself of a lot of stupid shit.

[LadyForCamus]

Of course that's your understanding.  That isn't the understanding of objective scholars, but if you already decided it's the word of god from the get-go, you can explain away anything you want.

If I am missing something, and you would like to add facts or reasoning to the discussion, then lets examine it.  Also is your meaning of "objective scholars" those who agree with you?

May I ask you a question, RR?  Steve too, if he's still following:

On the whole, do you find the contents of the Bible to be reliable, high-quality testimony?  Why, or why not?

[Amarok]

Now you guys can no longer say that evidence has not been presented.

Yes we can because it has not

And RR has nothing but straw men .

[Astreja]

What is clear here -- and what the Pigeon Chess Academy fails to acknowledge -- is that the so-called evidence is not up to our evidentiary standards.

If anything, I think we should raise those standards even more rather than lowering them to assuage the fee-fees of the flock. When dealing with an actual god, as opposed to a pretend one, said god should have no difficulty meeting the most stringent criteria that mortals can devise.

Not looking good for the theists.

[Crossless2.0]

What is clear here -- and what the Pigeon Chess Academy fails to acknowledge -- is that the so-called evidence is not up to our evidentiary standards.

If anything, I think we should raise those standards even more rather than lowering them to assuage the fee-fees of the flock.  When dealing with an actual god, as opposed to a pretend one, said god should have no difficulty meeting the most stringent criteria that mortals can devise.

Not looking good for the theists.

As it is, Yahweh fails the slackest of standards. It matters not a bit to me that Christians have talked themselves into believing they have standards. They're wrong and no amount of desperate sophistry will change that.

[LastPoet]

What is clear here -- and what the Pigeon Chess Academy fails to acknowledge -- is that the so-called evidence is not up to our evidentiary standards.

If anything, I think we should raise those standards even more rather than lowering them to assuage the fee-fees of the flock.  When dealing with an actual god, as opposed to a pretend one, said god should have no difficulty meeting the most stringent criteria that mortals can devise.

Not looking good for the theists.

Funny how their standards for evidence change, to other stuff that contradicts their bible, they have higher standards than anyone on earth. Stuff born from real research work, nor cummunal

[TheBeardedDude]

What is clear here -- and what the Pigeon Chess Academy fails to acknowledge -- is that the so-called evidence is not up to our evidentiary standards.

If anything, I think we should raise those standards even more rather than lowering them to assuage the fee-fees of the flock.  When dealing with an actual god, as opposed to a pretend one, said god should have no difficulty meeting the most stringent criteria that mortals can devise.

Not looking good for the theists.

Funny how their standards for evidence change, to other stuff that contradicts their bible, they have higher standards than anyone on earth. Stuff born from real research work, nor cummunal

And if it is perceived of as "fringe" because a majority of humans on Earth don't accept it (even if part of the reason for that is that they don't know anything about it), then it is a "conspiracy theory" on par with other great conspiracies. Like Alien abductions, the moon landing, 9/11 truthers, or the conspiracy that the thing on Trump's head really is his hair. Phsssssh, as if.

[LastPoet]

And if it is perceived of as "fringe" because a majority of humans on Earth don't accept it (even if part of the reason for that is that they don't know anything about it), then it is a "conspiracy theory" on par with other great conspiracies. Like Alien abductions, the moon landing, 9/11 truthers, or the conspiracy that the thing on Trump's head really is his hair. Phsssssh, as if.

You forgot the Jews. Never forget the jews. they have their jew fingers everywhere.

[TheBeardedDude]

And if it is perceived of as "fringe" because a majority of humans on Earth don't accept it (even if part of the reason for that is that they don't know anything about it), then it is a "conspiracy theory" on par with other great conspiracies. Like Alien abductions, the moon landing, 9/11 truthers, or the conspiracy that the thing on Trump's head really is his hair. Phsssssh, as if.

You forgot the Jews. Never forget the jews. they have their jew fingers everywhere.

Or the new Jews, the Muslims. The brand new scapegoat for international conspiracy against Christians.