(November 25, 2014 at 2:01 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I don't know what the fuck I am talking about? I said that there is historical evidence for Jesus "the man", and that the vast majority of historians, most of whom aren't even Christians, that Jesus the man existed.
If most of the historians involved in this discussion aren't christians, doesn't that give you a little hint as to the parts of the Jesus story they don't accept as true? And since you keep prattling on about the vast majority of historians accepting something, as though an argument from popularity is a legitimate point, then doesn't that simple fact alone completely scuttle any future arguments for the resurrection of Jesus you care to make?
Or is this another one of those double standards things, where anything you can spin to fit what you want to be true is an effective argument, but it becomes a fallacy again the moment it supports something you disagree with, because you said so?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
