Why be good?

[pocaracas]

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

A testable claim!

Care to provide links to where those characters are vouched for by these early church fathers?
Do remember that these links should contain, at least, the mention of the original documents where that vouching is done... it would be nice to have a date of those documents, as well...
Go ahead, I'll let you post links before the 30/30 rule is up... as I said before, such links are allowed.

[abaris]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And Harry Potter pulled his shtick even though he was under constant threat by Voldemort. He even called him by his name. How's that for courage?

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are on the same level of credit. There's even less historical evidence for those persons existing than there is for Jesus himself.

[Aroura]

What is the point of this line of questioning, Randy?  That people can be compelled to lie when threatened?

Do you have the first idea how insulting this line you're taking really is?

Okay.

The answer is yes. I am not going to stick by my guns, even if it is my truth, if the only outcome is my family getting hurt.

If I can judge that the threat is real, I have no pride hangup in allowing a person to think they've won so long as my family or my person is safe.

Okay. Parkers Tan is offiline, but I think we can agree that he would respond about the same as you.

So, let's recap: Parkers, Steel and CD have all had personal experiences and witnessed things they they know to be true. CD even says that Kitty was an eyewitness and will vouch for him. Each of you three has written - briefly - of your experience. 

I never denied any of your accounts. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would testify under oath under penalty of perjury. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote under any threat - even prison or death. All three of you said yes.

If I had asked, all three of you (plus Kitty) would have said that what you wrote is an accurate account of what you saw with your own eyes and experienced personally.

You even have other members of the forum attacking me on your behalf because they are convinced of your reputation; they do not doubt your testimony because they believe you to be honest men. So, they believe what you wrote to be true on the basis of your character, your general reliability.

And I suspect that if you could, you would have decked me for even callilng any of this into question. Agreed?

So, all in all, I think it would be reasonable for me to conclude that what each of you wrote is true - at least more likely than not.

Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

Actually, you phrased that really really weird, and Steel Curtain (though saying YES), if you read his response, he meant NO, he would LIE under threat of death.  And then CD agreed that people will lie under threat.  So......you used that as some kind of point, but you completely misquoted and misused what they said to make your point.

So perhaps, according to your example, those people lied when under threat of death.....just as CD and Steel Curtain said they would (not what you said they said).

Also their accounts (assuming they were real and the authors), don't match each other in many, many places.  How do you account for that?  And why do those contradictions not make you question those accounts?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The only response I have for people who insult my integrity is scorn and contempt. Violence certainly doesn't enter into it, unless they don't like being told to fuck off.

How that is germane to the veracity of the NT escapes me ... probably because it isn't.

[Esquilax]

The only response I have for people who insult my integrity is scorn and contempt.

How that is germane to the veracity of the NT escapes me ... probably because it isn't.

He's just another in a long line of christians who will say anything to prove the point they've presupposed to be true, no matter who they hurt or impugn, or how badly they come off in the attempt. It's quite simple, and has been aptly demonstrated by the way this argument has been approached: our beliefs, dignity, character and honor are worth less than Randy being seen to be right.

[comet]

why be good?

why not be good? This shit storm we call life is hard and sucks. why not help each other through it. it doesn't matter what you believe in really. Help the mother fukers out.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The only response I have for people who insult my integrity is scorn and contempt.

How that is germane to the veracity of the NT escapes me ... probably because it isn't.

He's just another in a long line of christians who will say anything to prove the point they've presupposed to be true, no matter who they hurt or impugn, or how badly they come off in the attempt. It's quite simple, and has been aptly demonstrated by the way this argument has been approached: our beliefs, dignity, character and honor are worth less than Randy being seen to be right.

Oh, I know, Esq.

The funny thing is that he thinks he's a good person. Come to think of it, he may just be. But he certainly is a classless person.

[abaris]

He's just another in a long line of christians who will say anything to prove the point they've presupposed to be true, no matter who they hurt or impugn, or how badly they come off in the attempt. It's quite simple, and has been aptly demonstrated by the way this argument has been approached: our beliefs, dignity, character and honor are worth less than Randy being seen to be right.

I didn't make a big deal about it before, but I somehow got into the shootout at the Vienna airport back in 1985. As has been said, you're far to busy staying alive to think about metaphysical matters. I guess it's the same in foxholes.

Since then I saw my mother and father die, sat on their deathbeds and not once did the thought of god or the hope of seeing them again some time cross my mind. God never entered my equations, so I guess, it's pretty presumpuous to assume it does for anyone not believing in him in the first place.

[SteelCurtain]

---

Okay.

The answer is yes. I am not going to stick by my guns, even if it is my truth, if the only outcome is my family getting hurt.

If I can judge that the threat is real, I have no pride hangup in allowing a person to think they've won so long as my family or my person is safe.

Okay. Parkers Tan is offiline, but I think we can agree that he would respond about the same as you.

So, let's recap: Parkers, Steel and CD have all had personal experiences and witnessed things they they know to be true. CD even says that Kitty was an eyewitness and will vouch for him. Each of you three has written - briefly - of your experience. 

I never denied any of your accounts. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would testify under oath under penalty of perjury. All three of you said yes. I asked if you would stand by what you wrote under any threat - even prison or death. All three of you said yes.

If I had asked, all three of you (plus Kitty) would have said that what you wrote is an accurate account of what you saw with your own eyes and experienced personally.

You even have other members of the forum attacking me on your behalf because they are convinced of your reputation; they do not doubt your testimony because they believe you to be honest men. So, they believe what you wrote to be true on the basis of your character, your general reliability.

And I suspect that if you could, you would have decked me for even callilng any of this into question. Agreed?

So, all in all, I think it would be reasonable for me to conclude that what each of you wrote is true - at least more likely than not.

Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

---

Read again, Randy. This was your question:

Would you ever deny the truth of your personal experiences about which you wrote previously?

And how would you react to anyone who said you were lying in those posts?

And my response was "Yes, if I deemed the threat (which you proposed) to be real."

The answer is yes. I am not going to stick by my guns, even if it is my truth, if the only outcome is my family getting hurt.

If I can judge that the threat is real, I have no pride hangup in allowing a person to think they've won so long as my family or my person is safe.

This just goes to show how much you are actually interested in discussion rather than preaching. You already had a script that you intended to go by, and after clearly not reading my response, you plowed ahead as if I responded like you wanted.

Man, are you disingenuous. If you are going to attempt to represent my position (and guess at Thump's), please read it first.

[Jackalope]

I asked if you would stand by what you wrote under any threat - even prison or death. All three of you said yes.

You're a goddamned liar, Randy, and anyone who cares to verify this only need read back in the thread.