If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

I think that there is some confusion in application here, and the tu quoque fallacy.   It's not fallacious or whataboutism, to point out hypocrisy.   The error is when you try to justify your position by using the others hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy, only shows that they cannot be correct in both instances.  It doesn't speak to which position is right or just.   Besides this was more of a me too moment!  

You lost your argument about Paul, and then tried to change topic. Do you think people didnt notice?

Actually someone else changed the topic, I commented on that. But if you would like to get back on topic, I’m still curious about what “if theist only understood evidence”.

And if you want to talk about Paul you can create a thread for that. If you want me to hop when you say jump.... you may be disappointed.

---

I didn't know that I was here.    I have pointed out scholarly consensus before, but it is mostly about their reasons for doing so.   I'm not against scholarly opinion at all, they spend a lot more time on things giving them the knowledge, and ability to organize information better then I can.   However, if they don't give any reason for their claims, I'm a little skeptical.   I don't think that they have a magical ability to peer into the past, sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes bias can cloud their judgement.   So I ask why?

I don't believe Paul, as can be gleaned from those letters that have been deemed to be authentic. If you want to believe him, go right ahead. I think that he was a dishonest man with mental health issues.

And, so, I am done with this thread. Until next time...

Ok... but you seem to have given me nothing more than feelings.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look how adroitly the last few pages can be memory holed, lol.  

If a person tells you that they think paul was a dishonest person who suffered from mental illness..they are only representing the majority opinion of scholarship on each respective claim. You seem to thinks it's feelings, whoooahohoh feelings.

So..this actually does beg a question.....do you understand evidence....?

The authentic paul of the nt was a barker in an era of carnival religion who told self aggrandizing fibs as a part of his act, at the very least. He complains of his illness. It's always been accepted that this was epilepsy. People thought so then, they still think so now..fuck, epilepsy is called st pauls disease for that very reason.

[RoadRunner79]

Look how adroitly the last few pages can be memory holed, lol.  

If a person tells you that they think paul was a dishonest person who suffered from mental illness..they are only representing the majority opinion of scholarship on each respective claim.  You seem to thinks it's feelings, whoooahohoh feelings.

So..this actually does beg a question.....do you understand evidence....?

The authentic paul of the nt was a barker in an era of carnival religion who told self aggrandizing fibs as a part of his act, at the very least.  He complains of his illness.  It's always been accepted that this was epilepsy.  People thought so then, they still think so now..fuck, epilepsy is called st pauls disease for that very reason.

If you are really interested in discussing it, I would suggest you make a thread, where we can start over, and you can present the evidence for your claims. This is such a gish gallop of an ever moving goal post. As soon as I reply to one thing; five more pop up, and my objections are being dodged. We can talk about  the claims individually in a reasonable manner, and then see how they fit together.

---

Or we can go back to the OP; if that’s not being completely avoided.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look how adroitly the last few pages can be memory holed, lol.  

If a person tells you that they think paul was a dishonest person who suffered from mental illness..they are only representing the majority opinion of scholarship on each respective claim.  You seem to thinks it's feelings, whoooahohoh feelings.

So..this actually does beg a question.....do you understand evidence....?

The authentic paul of the nt was a barker in an era of carnival religion who told self aggrandizing fibs as a part of his act, at the very least.  He complains of his illness.  It's always been accepted that this was epilepsy.  People thought so then, they still think so now..fuck, epilepsy is called st pauls disease for that very reason.

If you are really interested in discussing it, I would suggest you make a thread, where we can start over, and you can present the evidence for your claims.

Already have.  You asked a question..I answered it directly, my evidence is the authentic pauline epistles.  Do you have some issue...?

This is such a gish gallop of an ever moving goal post. As soon as I reply to one thing; five more pop up, and my objections are being dodged. We can talk about  the claims individually in a reasonable manner, and then see how they fit together.

---

Or we can go back to the OP; if that’s not being completely avoided.

Do you understand evidence? Do you have a problem with what is evident in the authentic epistles? Rhetorical, I know the answer to all three questions, obviously, lol.

[RoadRunner79]

If you are really interested in discussing it, I would suggest you make a thread, where we can start over, and you can present the evidence for your claims.

Already have.  You asked a question..I answered it directly, my evidence is the authentic pauline epistles.  Do you have some issue...?

This is such a gish gallop of an ever moving goal post. As soon as I reply to one thing; five more pop up, and my objections are being dodged. We can talk about  the claims individually in a reasonable manner, and then see how they fit together.

---

Or we can go back to the OP; if that’s not being completely avoided.

Do you understand evidence?  Do you have a problem with what is evident in the authentic epistles?

So now you want to go back to talking about what theist (or I) don’t understand about evidence?  I have been asking about that. It seems to have been ignored....

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not the first time I've asked you those questions, lol.  You've yet to answer them.  

Do you understand evidence?  Do you understand what it means for something be evident?  If you do, why do you have a problem with what is made evident in authentic paul? Can you explain your skepticism with regards to authentic paul?