Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[RoadRunner79]

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence.  And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

---

I can speak for myself thanks!  And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned).

Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?

"I can speak for myself thanks! "

And I can give my insight and opinions. That is what a forum is for after all.

"And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned)."

And I call "bullshit."

Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?

"Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?"

Accepting Christian "evidence" as indicating that Christianity is true, but not accepting comparable "evidence" for other religions to demonstrate that they are true and Christianity is false, is but one example from this thread. 

This makes no sense what so ever. You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true. In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true. Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading. Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction.