(October 14, 2013 at 8:46 am)max-greece Wrote: Now that's a very unfair condition. You can't get the majority of Christians to agree on anything very much.
OK, fair enough. My point was that my concern was with the Christians who say things like (quoting Kabane, an online apologist) "They're not midrash. They're intended to be historical documents."
A better way to have put my post that you responded to would be to clarify that I'm not concerned with Christians who read the Gospels as spiritual parables and symbolic messages, ala the gnositc traditions, which I actually would agree with GC that this is likely how they were intended anyway. My video series is directed at people like Kabane who, like the aliens in Galaxy Quest, read the Gospels and say "historical documents".
Similarly, I've had butt-hurt Ehrman fans leaving comments on my video series despite my repeated clarifications that I'm addressing the "historical account of the miracle working godman", not the "some-guy-named-Yeshua". You'd think this wouldn't be a problem since Ehrman himself as pointed out many of the problems I cite in the series and admits the Gospels contain "non historical elements".
So, Christians like GC (or Ehrman) can rest assured I'm not talking to them.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
