Why Christianity?

[rexbeccarox]

Aside from your plagiarism, which is likely to get you banned, your source is of an idiot.  I guess he believes that the 24th century BCE is after the stories of Jesus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth

Osiris rose from the dead and then impregnated his wife, according to the story that goes back over 2000 years before the Jesus story was told.

Just a quick note: I have no problem openly admitting that I copied a portion of the the article in my post. Big whoop. I'm not here to win praise or get paid. I'm here to get information into the minds of some people who desperately need it. If you'd ever bothered to read a book by a knowledgeable scholar on the subject, you wouldn't have been yapping about Osiris in the first place.

(bold mine)

Plagiarismis a "big whoop", Randy. It's totally and completely against the rules, among other things. You took someone's work and passed it off as your own (and, apparently you do it often; it's just hard to catch you at it because you copy and paste most of what you spew), and waited until confronted by it to admit it.

And, thanks very much, but if we "need" anything from you, we are capable of asking.

For the record, MOST of the material I post is my own adaptation of things that others have said before me. I mean seriously...after 2,000 years, how many new ways are we going to find to answer the same tired objections that skeptics ask?

Uh, in this case, you plagiarized the whole damn thing. It wasn't an adaptation; it was plagiarism.

When I do post material written by others, I do provide attribution and links...MOST of the time. I think it is fair to say that I am more diligent about quoting sources than just about anyone else in the forum since most people here just blow out their own opinions with little or no supporting material from experts.

No; actually, you aren't diligent at all if you've even done it once, let alone if you only do it "MOST" of the time.

HOWEVER, occasionally, I think that revealing the source of a passage I'm quoting will actually cause people to ignore it or to discount it completely or in part.

Not a good enough reason; in fact, that's pretty much the worst reason you could come up with.

I cite two examples:

• What happens every time I quote William Lane Craig? Esquilax has a cow.
  
• What happened when I quoted Licona above? You called him an idiot. (And for the record, I also quoted Yamauchi who is anything but an idiot.)
  

See my point?

Nope.

Sometimes I have to wrap my dog's medicine in bacon to get him to swallow a pill. Similarly, if I have to hide a source to get folks here to read what they need to learn, so be it. The fact that I have to resort to subterfuge says more about you atheists than it does about me.

Nope; still says more about you. For example: you have to result to dishonesty in order to try to get your point across; much like you do with your dog. See my point?

J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist, addressed this issue when he wrote:

As a skeptic, I was slow to accept even the slightest possibility that miracles were possible. My commitment to naturalism prevented me from considering such nonsense. But after my experience with presuppositions at crime scenes, I decided that I needed to be fair with my naturalistic inclinations. I couldn't begin with my conclusion, and if the evidence pointed to the reasonable existence of God, this certainly opened up the possibility of the miraculous. If God did exist, He was the creator of everything we see in the universe. He, therefore, created matter from nonmatter, life from nonlife; He created all time and space. God's creation of the universe would certainly be nothing short of...miraculous. If there was a God who could account for the beginning of the universe, lesser miracles (say, walking of water or healing the blind) might not be all that impressive. If I was going to learn the truth about the existence of a miraculous God, I needed to at least lay down my presuppositions about the miraculous. My experience at crime scenes has helped me do just that. This doesn't mean that I now rush to supernatural explanations every time I fail to find an easy or quick natural explanation. It simply means that I am open to following the evidence wherever it leads, even if it points to the existence of a miraculous designer. (J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 28-29)

Do you want a bacon-wrapped dog pill for being such a good boy and citing correctly? Ok.

Goooood Boooooy.

It's a shame that more atheists in this forum are not open to examining the evidence for Christianity in the way that Jim Wallace was finally able to do.

And it's a shame you're so intellectually dishonest you see no problem in using deceit as a way to get what you want. Your god must be so proud.