(July 11, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: 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.
Hilarious.
I cite Ehrman because he is right on some points. Especially when he devastates the Jesus Mythers.
I referred to Calvin in sarcasm.
I posted Pascal's Wager because despite protestations to the contrary, it is valid (and no blunder).
And in this thread, several forum members have conceded one or more of the "minimal facts". Which is progress.
This house is being brick by brick, and it takes time for the truth to sink in. I may be here awhile.
Oh, but since you have decided to participate in this thread, would you have any thoughts WHATSOEVER on the actual material I have presented? That would be a refreshing change since no one has made any efforts to interact with or refute the material.
