Raf

Charlie's Angels

29

30

i would guess you're on the wrong side of the pond. the sorta gave it away for me.

Kind of my point. Like the resurrection, or Elisha and the giant magic invisible army, or Daniel and... everything about Daniel. Recognizing a story as fictional resolves all contradictions without magically coming up with five crosses on the hill or Peter's six denials or Judas witnessing the ascension but then skipping out so the angels can call them Men of Galilee without being liars. No one is obliged to investigate the topic of this thread, but if you are going to investigate it, you have two choices. One is to follow the evidence where it leads, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you. The other is to decide your conclusion before you begin and cherry pick the evidence you're going to believe because it conforms to the conclusion you decided to reach before you really investigated anything. You can pray for guidance either way. God's not going to give you a scorpion if you ask for an egg, after all. Is he?

In the Spider-Man movies with Tobey Maguire, Spidey's webs were organic. They came out of his wrists. In the Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland movies, they're machines that Peter Parker made. What about the real Spider-Man? Were his web slingers organic or man-made? There are a couple of approaches to take. We can interview the producers. Go back to the source material. Or we can recognize this is a fictional character and neither answer is "true" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Wait until he finds out Paul didn't write Ephesians and that Daniel never existed.

John Ritter and Joyce DeWitt stayed withthe showfrom start to finish. Suzanne Sommers (sp?) was the first roommate, followed by Jenilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes.

it is. Don Knotts had one episode with the Ropers

Dutch Schultz and Raymond Babbit were next. You're

i missed 33 yesterday

Meyer Lansky Ted Kramer Edward Magorium

Of course.

The title of this program ultimately referred to five different characters. Only two stayed with the show through its entire run. When casting a replacement, regular supporting character, producers wanted someone who reminded them of a fairly famous comedic actor. When they couldn't find someone to fit the bill, they just approached the fairly famous actor himself. He agreed and stayed with the show for the rest of its run. He appeared in one episode with the two characters he replaced.

Honestly, this was over the moment you admitted the evidence would lead to my conclusion and not yours. This is a discussion forum, not a "who shall not be moved no matter where the evidence may lead" contest.

sorry. i meant Humbly Abandoned

Based on what? Surely not reason, which you have gleefully abandoned.

You have not countered my contention. Only expanded upon it. Good day.

Ricky... The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet

Yet when you claim that it takes humility to accept the resurrection and that you accept the resurrection, you claim the mantle of humility. I contend that you do not accept the resurrection because you know it to be true, but despite the fact that you know it to be a fiction. Else you would defend it with facts, not with the contention that the facts lead to the opposite conclusion.

"Hey, it's me!" "Prove it." "You're a d-ck." "Ok."

Why did I say it was not in keeping with the opening posts? Because the opening post on this thread features a video of William Lane Craig, and Craig does NOT argue that the evidence would lead one to conclude that the resurrection did not happen. Quite the opposite, Craig's argument is that the gospels are historical, irrefutable proof of the resurrection. He treats the empty tomb as historical fact, based on the gospels. He does NOT argue that God wants to throw smart people off the scent. If I were still a Christian, I would be insulted by the insinuation. But no, I do not think providing tangible evidence that the resurrection happened would make God a respecter of persons, ffs. Quite the opposite, I think it would make him someone who would have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. This is really a very clear example of moving the goalposts. We start a debate with "the evidence points to the resurrection" and literally, within a few pages of posts, change it to "the evidence points away from the resurrection: That's why you have to be humble, like me, to accept it." It reminds me of Weird Al's parody of "Gangsta's Paradise," titled, "Amish Paradise." Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a MILLION times as humble as thou art!" Funny thing, humility. Claiming it proves you don't have it. What you're describing is not humility. It's gullibility. Accepting something as true when the evidence shows you it's not is gullibility. It's not a virtue.

That was actually very well articulated. Not very persuasive, and not in keeping with the opening posts on this thread, but nonetheless well said without being unnecessarily argumentative... and not the slightest bit personal. Well done. I'll take some time either later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow to respond.