Re: Jesus Is God to intelligent people.

On 2 Jul, 16:38, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
>
> <roger.pea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> IG:
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In the total absence of any
evide=
nce of Jesus
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 historicity, it is not
unreasonab=
le to assume that
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legend of Jesus is just
myth.=

>
> =3D=3D>There is no absence. =A0Those to try to assert it (dishonestly)
hav=
e to
> =3D=3D>find excuses to ignore the evidence.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What evidence? =A0Outside of the New
Testa=
ment, there
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 isn't a single credible historical
source =
that offers
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 any evidence that the Jesus of the New
Tes=
tament
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 actually lived.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You can babble all you like about
Josephus=
 and Tacitus
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 and anonymous people who may have
"known" =
the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 apostles, but none of that is more than
wi=
ld
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 speculation -- part of the desperate
effor=
t to prove
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the unprovable.

I see.  So the NT isn't evidence, for some reason; and statements by
pagans aren't evidence; and statements by the fathers aren't
evidence... what is left?  Video recordings?

The fact is that all of these are evidence of the existence of a man.
The ability to find excuses to ignore data is not evidence.

> =3D=3D>It is a clear sign that atheism is not true
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 It's not that atheism is "true," it's
that=
 atheism
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 is the only possible choice for sane
peopl=
e of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 more than dull-normal intelligence and
eve=
n
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 average education level.

Considering the tiny number of atheists, and their lack of distinction
for such qualities, may I suggest that you are mistaken?

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You like gospel? =A0Here's ...
(anti-relig=
ious rant snipped)

This has nothing to do with my post, tho.

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You know that's true, so why not drop
the =
religious
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 bull**** and accept reality?

Because none of it is true.  Atheists in practice live by some subset
of the societal values of the period of history in which they happened
to be born.  Such conformity, never discussed or made explicit, is the
choice that you are pu****ng here (for your hatreds are neither here
nor there, and merely beg this question).  I suggest that such a
position only has to be stated to be shown to be false.

All the best,

Roger Pearse