I do see that I am not getting through to you and, to make things perfectly clear, let me use this analogy. You keep trotting out "the gospels say" and "scholars say." I know what the gospels say. I've read them. There are sufficient contradictions for me to dismiss them as propaganda written for different people in different places. I do not care what they say.
Here is the problem. I call this the Tax Fraud Analogy.
Picture a courtroom where a man is on trial for income tax evasion. A forensic accountant is on the witness stand explaining how he has thoroughly investigated the books and records and can find no substantiation for the expenses and deductions claimed. At this point, the defendant stands up waving the tax return in question and shouts "bullshit...it's all in here."
We know what he wrote on the return. It forms the basis of the indictment. What we want to see are the invoices and cancelled checks which substantiate those claims.
This is what I want from bible-thumpers. I want to see the invoices and the cancelled checks and all I ever get is "the gospels say."
Well. Fuck the gospels. As far as I am concerned those are what is on trial.
Here is the problem. I call this the Tax Fraud Analogy.
Picture a courtroom where a man is on trial for income tax evasion. A forensic accountant is on the witness stand explaining how he has thoroughly investigated the books and records and can find no substantiation for the expenses and deductions claimed. At this point, the defendant stands up waving the tax return in question and shouts "bullshit...it's all in here."
We know what he wrote on the return. It forms the basis of the indictment. What we want to see are the invoices and cancelled checks which substantiate those claims.
This is what I want from bible-thumpers. I want to see the invoices and the cancelled checks and all I ever get is "the gospels say."
Well. Fuck the gospels. As far as I am concerned those are what is on trial.
