MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[KevinM1]

This thread... it's going places.

EDIT: why the hell are all of my snarky retorts top-of-the-page posts? :laugh:

[robvalue]

It's achieved a lot of things, most of which are undesirable, and none of which are anything to do with the supposed purpose.

---

I think it's time to send us a gift wrapped zombie jesus or recover some self respect by bowing out.

[Strider]

153 pages and counting to convince me that a dead Jew rose from the dead...

He really could have stopped at the first page. Once you're dead (and for three days at that), you're dead forever. End of story.

[LastPoet]

Hmmm well, atheists need chewtoys too, I guess

[Crossless2.0]

If there is ever going to be a part three, it'd better be fucking worth it after all this buildup.

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus himself had better show up and make the case.

---

This thread... it's going places.

EDIT: why the hell are all of my snarky retorts top-of-the-page posts?

In keeping with the spirit of the OP, I fixed that for you. Now that you have the required number of smilies in your post, you too can be a fearsome apologetics warrior for Christ. Go forth and fail!

[Free]

Bullshit. You pressed me on the issue of bias, I gave you my interpretation of it in bold in relation to the general forum as to be applied here, and you CHOSE to ignore that obvious application in favor of a more nefarious interpretation in an effort to paint me in a negative light.

I demonstrated my point on the prejudicial bias issue HERE.


But HERE I gave you multiple definitions of the type of bias that is widespread on this forum, and even placed the definition I hold to in bold, making it very obvious.

But you chose to ignore that, and instead wrongfully accuse me of equivocating. You seem to fail to understand the many applications of the word bias, and instead are attempting to corner me into saying it only means what YOU understand it to mean, or what YOU are insisting my meaning as being.

I'm well aware that the word bias can be taken to mean multiple things, but I'm also well aware that the definition you opted to bold makes the initial argument about bias you made entirely nonsensical. If you're using bias just to mean "having an opinion on a given issue," as you claimed, then how on earth could you use that bias as a reason to dismiss the arguments put forward by others in this thread? You can't use "you disagree with me" as a reason to dismiss what they have to say.

I did no such thing. Please point out where I did anything of the sort.

I opted to think you were smarter than that, and were simply backtracking. Would you like me to reconsider, and downgrade you from dishonest to just moronic?

Don't be dishonest; you treat me as moronic anyways.

Bullshit again. Here you go saying I am trying to direct people in what they believe while you are trying to direct people in what I believe? That's fucking hypocritical at its best.

I'm not trying to direct people as to what you believe, I'm merely pointing out that what you said, and your reasoning for why you said it, not only don't match up, but are entirely discordant with one another.

More bullshit. You can read my mind, oh great one?

Still putting words in my mouth.

The entire problem here is your unwavering intention to insist upon me and others who read this that your definition of bias is the only definition to be adhered to. To me, that's no different than putting words in my mouth, and also, absolutely constitutes a lack of trust in you from my position.

Read above: if you want to insist upon your definition of bias that's fine, but it does negate what you initially said.

And exactly what did I initially say? You seem to insist that you can somehow read my mind and determine my meaning. It appears absolutely impossible for you to consider any possibility that you could be wrong.

This takes conceit to a level of ridiculous proportions.

[KevinM1]

I believe in god because the book that describes god told me to believe in him, or else, even though no credible outside sources lend credence to his/its existence. Also, god is good because the book tells me god is good, even though his actual actions as described in the book are placed firmly in the asshole category.

... how am I doing as an apologist so far?

[The Valkyrie]

I believe in god because the book that describes god told me to believe in him, or else, even though no credible outside sources lend credence to his/its existence. Also, god is good because the book tells me god is good, even though his actual actions as described in the book are placed firmly in the asshole category.

... how am I doing as an apologist so far?

You also need something like, "I know the bible APPEARS to promote slavery and murder but these have been interpreted and ben explained away by stretching credibility to breaking point."

[Cyberman]

I believe in god because the book that describes god told me to believe in him, or else, even though no credible outside sources lend credence to his/its existence. Also, god is good because the book tells me god is good, even though his actual actions as described in the book are placed firmly in the asshole category.

... how am I doing as an apologist so far?

Need more arrogance, the CAPSLOCK OF TRUTH and that damn roflol smiley every other fucking word. Oh and the odd "bullshit!" wouldn't be out of place. Other than that, scarily good.

[Crossless2.0]

I believe in god because the book that describes god told me to believe in him, or else, even though no credible outside sources lend credence to his/its existence. Also, god is good because the book tells me god is good, even though his actual actions as described in the book are placed firmly in the asshole category.

... how am I doing as an apologist so far?

More smilies! And maybe some cowbell.