(August 20, 2014 at 12:07 am)Minimalist Wrote: Yeah but that's one of the inerrant passages that was added later by some unknown scribe because the original ending sucked....you know, like the ending of Monty Python and the Holy Grail....or Blazing Saddles.
It's still their "sacred scripture" so they have to explain why, yet again, it fails to conform to reality. They can't claim I'm not being reasonable about my standards of evidence because it's what their own book claims I should expect to see.
They'd rather spend their time trying to argue that their folklore about the suffering martyrs proves their mythology is true.
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
