(November 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.
Curious, that.
In all honesty, he says this is only part 1. Meant to establish Jesus' historical existence first.
They he's going to bring out the Big Guns and prove the resurrection.
What's curious is that the Biblical 'God' and 'Jesus' character need a dishonest, willfully ignorant agent like H_M to represent them, when they should be more than up for the job themselves, or at the very least, pick better advocates than H_M.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
