Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Minimalist]

Notice how he didn't answer the reply.

This is why using "ignore" is for pussies and charlatans.

As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune, "Those who see only what they wish are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions."

Randy has chosen that route.

Can't remember who it was who told Luther, "You have chosen a hard road, Little Monk."

Parkers Tan, you know I love ya, but I can't blame Randy for ignoring ad hominem posts. He's here to have a discussion with people who genuinely want to discuss these issues. 

No, he's not.  He just wants to preach his bullshit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Notice how he didn't answer the reply.

This is why using "ignore" is for pussies and charlatans.

As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune, "Those who see only what they wish are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions."

Randy has chosen that route.

Can't remember who it was who told Luther, "You have chosen a hard road, Little Monk."

Parkers Tan, you know I love ya, but I can't blame Randy for ignoring ad hominem posts. He's here to have a discussion with people who genuinely want to discuss these issues. 

I tried that. That isn't what he wants. He ignores what he cannot answer, and he mocks those who don't accept his preconceived notions. He refuses to put up evidence when he makes bald claims; unlike you, he doesn't refer to his beliefs as beliefs, he behaves as if they're fact. And when none of that works, he himself engages in personal attacks.

He doesn't want discussion. He wants a podium for his views.

Great. But they will be questioned. The fact that he cannot stomach questions, the fact that he hides uncomfortable views, is very unconvincing. We have here a guy who says that God is on his side, and yet here he is, afraid to cross opinions with certain members. Daniel walked willingly into the lion's den, with faith that Yahweh would protect him ... but Randy cannot stand to read some offensive posts?

Some god. Some faith.

You I respect because you don't portray your beliefs as objective truths. You're wise enough to understand that your views are yours and they don't apply to everyone. I'm happy to discuss all those topics without personal attacks, because you don't pretend as if you're Moses coming down from the mountain with graven truth. You don't have the ego, or the bombast, or the foolishness of pride, and you don't ignore people simply for making you uncomfortable.

You've earnt my respect. Randy hasn't; and by his liberal use of ignore, likely never will.

[Minimalist]

Of course the great thing about IGNORE is that you can shit on him at will for the amusement of all.

[Longhorn]

All this typing and all this effort. And for what?

Look at it from a perspective, Randy.

There is a being, who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present. It created humans and cares deeply about what they believe about it, so much that it decides what to do with them after death depending on that. It has been interfering with human lives for centuries. It even went down to earth itself, as a human.

And you're struggling to provide something that isn't even evidence for it.

How can you believe in the face of such a disproportionately underwhelming, if not entirely absent evidence for something that should be the easiest thing to prove?

[pocaracas]

Randy is arguing that the same story written by different people, each of them adding different emphasis on different details, each with a different agenda, somehow means that the story actually happened as described by each of them.

Several different parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh have been found, some repeat the stories found in other parts, with a few details added or removed, and are dated to a whole different century... does that make the epic any more factual?
Did the gods send Enkidu to challenge Gilgamesh, king of Uruk? Considering that the people of Uruk sent their best prostitute to keep Enkidu busy and out of the city, I'd guess that it's very likely that Enkidu was an actual real threat to Gilgamesh's rule of that city.
I mean... prostitutes exist, we know that. Some are very good at their trade and can lead any man astray, no matter how powerful he is.
We know Uruk existed, there is archeological evidence for it.
We know these first city-states were ruled by a king, and that's what Gilgamesh would be.
He fought and, finding they were well matched, befriended Enkidu, eventually. We know people make friends with their enemies out of respect, occasionally.

So, like I've asked about islam, now I ask you about the babylonians... Why don't you believe in them?

[Cyberman]

Parkers Tan, you know I love ya, but I can't blame Randy for ignoring ad hominem posts. He's here to have a discussion with people who genuinely want to discuss these issues. 

If that were true, he wouldn't keep resorting to "god's gonna git ya" threats. You don't.

[Cato]

No, he's not.  He just wants to preach his bullshit.

It's like a ten year old that still believes in Santa Clause quoting scenes from old stop animation Christmas shows to rationalize and justify his belief.

[Randy Carson]

All this typing and all this effort. And for what?

Look at it from a perspective, Randy.

There is a being, who is all-powerful,  all-knowing and all-present. It created humans and cares deeply about what they believe about it, so much that it decides what to do with them after death depending on that. It has been interfering with human lives for centuries. It even went down to earth itself, as a human.

And you're struggling to provide something that isn't even evidence for it.

How can you believe in the face of such a disproportionately underwhelming, if not entirely absent evidence for something that should be the easiest thing to prove?

This has been explained MULTIPLE times.

<once more with feeling>

God is not struggling to reveal himself to you nor am I struggling to show you what evidence we do have. You're struggling to accept it. That's all.

If God were to make a more overt gesture of His existence, He would interfere with our free will.

It's just that simple.

[Randy Carson]

Randy is arguing that the same story written by different people, each of them adding different emphasis on different details, each with a different agenda, somehow means that the story actually happened as described by each of them.

Several different parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh have been found, some repeat the stories found in other parts, with a few details added or removed, and are dated to a whole different century... does that make the epic any more factual?
Did the gods send Enkidu to challenge Gilgamesh, king of Uruk? Considering that the people of Uruk sent their best prostitute to keep Enkidu busy and out of the city, I'd guess that it's very likely that Enkidu was an actual real threat to Gilgamesh's rule of that city.
I mean... prostitutes exist, we know that. Some are very good at their trade and can lead any man astray, no matter how powerful he is.
We know Uruk existed, there is archeological evidence for it.
We know these first city-states were ruled by a king, and that's what Gilgamesh would be.
He fought and, finding they were well matched, befriended Enkidu, eventually. We know people make friends with their enemies out of respect, occasionally.

So, like I've asked about islam, now I ask you about the babylonians... Why don't you believe in them?

For the same reason that atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill and others do not believe in them.

Because the parallels are superficial (at best) and poorly documented in comparison to the evidence for the existence of Jesus.

If you read the analysis of true experts (and not the pop crap you find on the Internet), you will learn that professional scholars don't see the connections between Jesus and <insert pagan god here> that rank amateurs enjoy discussing amongst themselves.

This really is a dead end for you and a waste of time.

[pocaracas]

No Randy, you don't believe in them because the babylonian myths were already cold myths by the time people discovered them.
And I'm not making any parallels between any pagan god and Jesus, except in the way we have access to information about either of them: Tales written in the olden times, in foreign, often long-dead, languages.