As I said before, this thread is an extended exercise in Randy throwing shit against the wall to see if anything will stick. He'll cite Ehrman if he thinks it will serve his purpose while ignoring the fact that Ehrman doesn't believe in the Christ. He will refer to Calvin, in spite of Calvin's loathing of the Catholic Church. He pulled Pascal's Wager out of his ass in another thread without so much as blushing for shame at such a ham-fisted blunder. And sixty-eight pages into this pointless discussion, we are no closer to the promised "proof" of the resurrection than we were when it began. Big surprise.
Randy has absolutely no sense of what intellectual integrity might mean. In other words, he's a typical Christian apologist. Nothing to see here except a case lesson in the fundamental dishonesty of people who insist their imaginary friends are real and that the rest of us should take them seriously.
Randy has absolutely no sense of what intellectual integrity might mean. In other words, he's a typical Christian apologist. Nothing to see here except a case lesson in the fundamental dishonesty of people who insist their imaginary friends are real and that the rest of us should take them seriously.
