Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

For there to be special pleading, you need the circumstances to be the same (or similar) and treat them differently.

Do you imagine that all the authors, all the surviving text making claims about public events-

A claim about a public event is just that.  A claim.  We have zero external corroboration for these supernatural claims, and after two thousand years I wouldn't even consider them claims anymore.  They're stories.  This is why we tell you that the Bible IS the claim, not the evidence.

Several things wrong here. It does not matter how you want to characterize the information we have. The information serves to make the circumstances between Christianity and Mormonism different so therefore no special pleading can occur. 

-existing churches before any of the writings are similar to one person's claims of what happened to him when he was all by himself?

So a bunch of people made supernatural claims and birthed a religion two thousand years prior to Joseph Smith doing the exact same thing, but since your cult came first and contained more claimants, that makes it somehow categorically different?  The total number of people telling a story has no bearing whatsoever on its truth.  

You are mixing two different things. The fact that it is possible that Christianity might not be true does not have anything to do with the subject of special pleading. --Even if your mischaracterizations are true, there is no special pleading. 

If you think this is similar, your bias and/or intellectual honesty is so far out of whack there is no sense in continuing debating this issue.

If you think two thousand year old, unverifiable hearsay regarding supernatural claims is in some way special, or more legitimate than the supernatural claims of one man who we at least know for a fact existed, then the bias is yours.  And the pleading is...ya know...special.  😉

I will say it again in case you missed it above: Even if your mischaracterizations are true, there is no special pleading. The information, mode, quantity, timeframe and context are so different, by the definition of special pleading, there could not be any.

---

"Paul" doesn;t claim to have met any jesus, he tells a story of having a vision of christ on a road.

Who were the witnesses to this vision?  No one.  God spoke to "Paul" in a voice only understood by him.  Somehow, Saul the Hater immediately recognizes that this is The Lord, and addresses him as such.

You don't even know your own silly fucking stories Steve.  The only qualitative difference between Joe Smith and "Paul" and their respective stories, is that Joe Smith was an actual person.

What are you talking about?! I never claimed Paul was an eyewitness. 

If the only thing we had were Paul's letters and Joe's book, then you would have a point. That is not all we have so you don't have a point.