- Mar 25, 2003
- 3,109
- 118
- 71
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Your inability to understand the concept of the slippery slope fallacy does not qualify you to pass judgment and remark that I am dishonest. I am not dishonest. I have been truthful the entire time. You pervert my responses to provide a smoke screen to hide the fact that you never had anything to back up your claims.The argument is and always has been that this is a piece of evidence on the scales against the resurrection. It's never been my claim that this is a knock-down argument. Therefore it cannot possibly qualify as a slippery-slope argument. Your dishonesty perpetuates, to no one's surprise.
Guilty as charged. After reading the insulting remarks you made to the other posters I responded in kind. I even admitted this in my reply to another poster here. Was I wrong in doing so? Yes. Am I sorry? Only in that it opened the floodgates of your insulting remarks. Which is worst in your opinion; my indicating you didn’t read the text or you calling me a liar outright?You began the ridicule here by telling me I need to read the text before making threads like this…
First of all it has nothing to do with whether the guards looked into the sepulcher or not, never had and never will. Secondly you have not proven that they didn’t see the guards. All you have is an omission of an event that you believe should have been included because of some idea stuck in your head that you have the ability to ascertain what the author should have written about. You have quoted believability and continuity as the reason for your opinion but are unable to explain it with a plausible argument.You seem to not have noticed the part where I say, "BUT IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE WOMEN DIDN'T SEE THEM."
No we never established this. This is your opinion based on your view that the author made the story up. The only holes in the story you see is based on that assumption and not on the actual text itself.Secondly, I think we've established that the resurrection story, at best, has gaps in continuity, or, at worst, has plot holes. If a story has no corroborating evidence AND has continuity issues, and yet the events are true, then the author of the story has done a very poor job.
I admitted that I made an error I corrected it. You continually throw this in my face as being dishonest by ignoring the fact that I corrected it. How is that being honest on your part?This was your response to my remark:
And just where did I do this? You make false accusations that you never back upYou are taking me out of context, either accidentally or deliberately.
You never had anything from the start. You do not have any strong points for me to redact. You have simply ignored my actual position and substituted a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of my position.I've got nothing else for you because you are a dishonest and hypocritical debater, and because you refused to address my paragraph in bold and red twice. You deliberately redact and ignore the strongest points of my arguments in direct opposition to the principle of charity.
Upvote
0