(January 4, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Astonished Wrote:(January 4, 2017 at 2:57 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote: Astonished,
Its called the preponderance of the evidence, lack of historicity to prove a point, actual written history to derail an alleged truth, and only relying
upon "faith" which is not an absolute. When the dust settles, 99.999% of the time, there was no BIBLE Jesus.
When this topic comes up, and as shown, the pseudo-christian runs away from it as fast as they can.
Again, Carl Sagan said it best relative to pseudo-christians, to wit: “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on
evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” -Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
m
Has there been any attempt to explain why anyone should respect that?
Astonished,
Are you saying that one is not to respect logic, reason, written historicity and the lack thereof, revealing biblical axioms, and the like?
Don't make this notion of Jesus' alleged existence harder than it needs to be.
m
