Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Goose]

To which you responded:

The problem is overblown. Matthew having been a tax collector was likely educated in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. There’s no compelling reason to think he could not have first written a Gospel in the Hebrew dialect and then later written one in Greek. Or even translated his own Hebrew version into a Greek one without leaving signs of translation.

Which in fact lead us right back to my original point which was that no one actually knows who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew.The apostle Matthew COULD have written the Gospel in the same way that anyone living in the first century COULD have written it. But we have no direct evidence who that was! And therefore no "strong evidence" which would compel us to accept the validity of the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away. And certainly EVERY real reason to impugn it!

You STILL aren’t addressing my argument about Matthew especially when we consider there is evidence, from the translations of Josephus’ for example, that it wasn’t unprecedented at the time to be able to translate works from Hebrew to Greek without leaving signs of translation. You simply complain and counter with “no one actually knows� as though that itself refutes the arguments. Further you still haven’t addressed my final argument on Matthew which I gave to you not once but twice. Here I’ll give it you again. Maybe three times the charm?

And I addressed your point with the bottom line that we have unanimous testimony that Matthew authored a Gospel. Wwhen combined with the fact that not one single manuscript tradition assigns Matthew to anyone other than Matthew we have a very strong case for authorship, at least as strong as other works from ancient history. You didn’t address this argument with your complaints above.

The same may be said for the identity of the author of 1 Peter and your insistence that 1 Peter represents an eye witness source. The Wikipedia article on 1 Peter discusses the various arguments pro and con concerning the identity of the author of 1 Peter, and then concludes:

Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Peter

Which is simply a factual statement. The authorship of 1 Peter is widely contested. I also pointed out to you, in rather great detail, that many dozens of works attributed to the various apostles and other figures prominent in the NT story of Jesus were published pseudonymously at the time. In other words, they were written "in the name" of the apostle or NT figure by unknown individuals, and that such works were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time since they were produced under the influence of the Holy Spirit. To which you replied:

We need not go to the extreme of assuming pseudonymity when Peter himself provides a strong enough explanation for the very good Greek. That is the use of an amanuensis which wasn’t unprecedented even by Greek writers such as Paul.

�Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God.� – 1 Peter 5:12

Even if we do not grant the use of an amanuensis then surely the 30 years from Jesus’ death/resurrection to the time the letter was written, if written by Peter, was sufficient time for Peter to become fluent enough to account for the high quality of Greek in the letter.

In other words Peter, the poor simple fisherman, COULD have learned to write in perfect Koine Greek over the years and therefore COULD therefore have been the author of 1 Peter.

I guess Wikipedia didn't have a counter argument for this. You may as well be saying, “I don't know what to argue here so I'll just stomp my feet!� The reason you have no counter argument is you intuitively understand 30 years is sufficient time to learn a language and learn it very well.

Further I provided you evidence that the terminology in 1 Peter 5:12 has been used elsewhere by Eusebius for a letter writer and not a courier. But you had not response to that argument either and just ignored it. What’s the matter, Wikipedia didn’t have something you could cut and paste on that either?

Your claim that pseudonymous works “were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time� is patently false. As an example, consider the words of Serapion, as recorded by Eusebius, regarding the Gospel of Peter.

�For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.� – Church History 6.12.3

The uniform evidence from the early church suggests they made a point of rejecting works that were considered pseudonymous (1 Peter wasn’t one of them by the way) thus giving us evidence that pseudonymity was not an acceptable practise in the early church.

Let’s not forget your dismissal of the overwhelming external evidence for John’s authorship. I guess Wikipedia doesn’t have anything you can cut and paste on that either, huh.

As I have shown above, your arguments return back to claims of what COULD be true, which is a very far cry from justifying the historical evidence as "strong,"

All you’ve offered are some cut and pastes from wiki outlining the flimsy reasons as to why some people question authorship. You have no objective methodology for establishing the evidence as weak or strong. When we take the reasoning you apply to the evidence for the resurrection and apply it to the evidence for other events like the assassination or authorship of the Gallic Wars your methodology moves us down the absurd path that history is utterly unknowable which of course no historian would argue. Therefore, your methodology must be flawed or you are biased against the evidence for the resurrection.

Whereas I’ve offered an objective methodology for evaluating the strength of the evidence by way of comparison to another event as a control. When we line up the evidence for the assassination with the evidence for the resurrection we see the evidence for the later is just as strong if not stronger. You haven’t even come close to refuting this.

The lack of comment on events when they were supposed to have occurred is perfectly in keeping with the lack of any such events actually occurring, you see. That is perfectly clear and valid logic. It certainly does not serve to justify or substantiate the statement that "the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong."

This is a classic example of your faulty reasoning that you repeatedly peddle over and over. Here your “valid logic,� if we apply it to other notable events from ancient history, obliterates the assassination of Caesar, for example, because there is next to no evidence from the time it occurred. Despite the fact we might expect there to be abundant evidence for the assassination considering who was murdered and the number of possible witnesses. How many more times must I show your reasoning to be faulty? Do you simply not care that your reasoning is faulty?

So cut and run from the discussion if you choose, but do not allow your self deception to misunderstand what is obvious to everyone else; that you have been getting the worst of it and well know it!

This assessment coming from the guy who tried to argue a duck is a goose.

Now, do you have any cogent counter arguments to make or is staring at your feet and mumbling “no one actually knows� all we can expect?

[Goose]

You have to tell us what it is you're trying to prove, before we can determine if the evidence you provided was sufficient.

I've tried to tell you this numerous times. What I'm attempting to establish is that the Christian is justified in his belief in the resurrection because the historical evidence is strong. I've attempted to do this by offering an objective method to determine the strength of that evidence by comparing it to the evidence for the assassination of Caesar as a control. Whenever you are ready we can begin to discuss it.

[no evidence no belief]

To which you responded:

The problem is overblown. Matthew having been a tax collector was likely educated in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. There’s no compelling reason to think he could not have first written a Gospel in the Hebrew dialect and then later written one in Greek. Or even translated his own Hebrew version into a Greek one without leaving signs of translation.

Which in fact lead us right back to my original point which was that no one actually knows who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew.The apostle Matthew COULD have written the Gospel in the same way that anyone living in the first century COULD have written it. But we have no direct evidence who that was! And therefore no "strong evidence" which would compel us to accept the validity of the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away. And certainly EVERY real reason to impugn it!

You STILL aren’t addressing my argument about Matthew especially when we consider there is evidence, from the translations of Josephus’ for example, that it wasn’t unprecedented at the time to be able to translate works from Hebrew to Greek without leaving signs of translation. You simply complain and counter with “no one actually knows� as though that itself refutes the arguments. Further you still haven’t addressed my final argument on Matthew which I gave to you not once but twice. Here I’ll give it you again. Maybe three times the charm?

And I addressed your point with the bottom line that we have unanimous testimony that Matthew authored a Gospel. Wwhen combined with the fact that not one single manuscript tradition assigns Matthew to anyone other than Matthew we have a very strong case for authorship, at least as strong as other works from ancient history. You didn’t address this argument with your complaints above.

Now, do you have any cogent counter arguments to make or is staring at your feet and mumbling “no one actually knows� all you can muster up?

The same may be said for the identity of the author of 1 Peter and your insistence that 1 Peter represents an eye witness source. The Wikipedia article on 1 Peter discusses the various arguments pro and con concerning the identity of the author of 1 Peter, and then concludes:

Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Peter

Which is simply a factual statement. The authorship of 1 Peter is widely contested. I also pointed out to you, in rather great detail, that many dozens of works attributed to the various apostles and other figures prominent in the NT story of Jesus were published pseudonymously at the time. In other words, they were written "in the name" of the apostle or NT figure by unknown individuals, and that such works were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time since they were produced under the influence of the Holy Spirit. To which you replied:

We need not go to the extreme of assuming pseudonymity when Peter himself provides a strong enough explanation for the very good Greek. That is the use of an amanuensis which wasn’t unprecedented even by Greek writers such as Paul.

�Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God.� – 1 Peter 5:12

Even if we do not grant the use of an amanuensis then surely the 30 years from Jesus’ death/resurrection to the time the letter was written, if written by Peter, was sufficient time for Peter to become fluent enough to account for the high quality of Greek in the letter.

In other words Peter, the poor simple fisherman, COULD have learned to write in perfect Koine Greek over the years and therefore COULD therefore have been the author of 1 Peter.

I guess Wikipedia didn't have a counter argument for this. You may as well be saying, “I don't know what to argue here so I'll just stomp my feet!� We intuitively understand 30 years is sufficient time to learn a language and learn it very well.

Further I provided you evidence that the terminology in 1 Peter 5:12 has been used elsewhere by Eusebius to show it was a letter writer and not a courier. But you had not response to that argument either and just ignored it. What’s the matter, Wikipedia didn’t have something you could cut and paste on that either?

Your claim that pseudonymous works “were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time� is patently false. As an example, consider the words of Serapion, as recorded by Eusebius, regarding the Gospel of Peter.

�For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.� – Church History 6.12.3

The uniform evidence from the early church suggests they made a point of rejecting works that were considered pseudonymous (1 Peter wasn’t one of them by the way) thus giving us evidence that pseudonymity was not an acceptable practise in the early church.

Let’s not forget your dismissal of the overwhelming external evidence for John’s authorship. I guess Wikipedia doesn’t have anything you can cut and paste on that either, huh.

As I have shown above, your arguments return back to claims of what COULD be true, which is a very far cry from justifying the historical evidence as "strong,"

All you’ve offered are some cut and pastes from wiki outlining the flimsy reasons as to why some people question authorship. You have no objective methodology for establishing the evidence as weak or strong. When we take the reasoning you apply to the evidence for the resurrection and apply it to the evidence for other events like the assassination or authorship of the Gallic Wars your methodology moves us down the absurd path that history is utterly unknowable which of course no historian would argue. Therefore, your methodology must be flawed or you are biased against the evidence for the resurrection.
Whereas I’ve offered an objective methodology for evaluating the strength of the evidence by way of comparison to another event as a control. When we line up the evidence for the assassination with the evidence for the resurrection we see the evidence for the later is just as strong if not stronger. You haven’t even come close to refuting this.

You are simply not dealing with the arguments and counter arguments.

The lack of comment on events when they were supposed to have occurred is perfectly in keeping with the lack of any such events actually occurring, you see. That is perfectly clear and valid logic. It certainly does not serve to justify or substantiate the statement that "the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong."

This is a classic example of your faulty reasoning that you repeatedly peddle over and over. Here your “valid logic,� if we apply it to other notable events from ancient history, obliterates the assassination of Caesar, for example, because there is next to no evidence for it when it occurred. Despite the fact we might expect there to be abundant evidence for the assassination considering who was murdered and the number of possible witnesses. How many more times must I show your reasoning to be faulty? Do you simply not care that your reasoning is faulty?

So cut and run from the discussion if you choose, but do not allow your self deception to misunderstand what is obvious to everyone else; that you have been getting the worst of it and well know it!

This assessment coming from the guy who tried to argue a duck is a goose.

Sweetie, I appreciate your interest in discussing the minutiae of which iron age barbarian scribbled what. I understand it's all very interesting.

But whether or not this constitutes adequate evidence for the resurrection depends on what the resurrection is!

How can you possibly not understand this!?

Hearsay testimony, historical evidence, words scribbled on sheep skin, etc are all potentially perfectly acceptable evidence for events that do not violate the laws of physics, such as the assassination of Caesar.

Hearsay testimony, historical evidence, words scribbled on sheep skin, etc are NOT acceptable evidence for a violation of the laws of physics.

So I will ask you one more time. Was Jesus's resuscitation just an extremely unlikely but natural event similar to what has been observed in some patients over the years? In this case, circumstantial, historical evidence, just like for Caesar's assassination, could totally be sufficient.

Or was it a brain-dead, heart-dead, liver-dead, pancreas-dead, lung-dead, kidney-dead, blood turned to scabs inside the veins, maggot-filled carcass decomposing in the middle eastern heat, coming back to life and flying into the air like Rudlph the Red Nosed Reindeer?

If you want to retain a tiny shred of credibility, you HAVE TO tell us what you're trying to demonstrate with the evidence you are presenting.

Hey, I'll throw you a bone. If you want, you can just say that you are not sure whether the resurrection was within the laws of physics or outside of them, and we can spend some time trying to figure it out together.

But you simply CANNOT claim that it's not important to know what X is, when determining if any given evidence is sufficient to demonstrate X happened.

Sorry buddy. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but it looks like it's pretty much game over.

[instantc]

The classic proof of god from morality goes something like:
It appears to human beings that moral norms exist.
The best explanation for these moral norms or laws is that they are grounded in God.
Therefore God exists.

This would be an honest version of the argument, I have usually seen it in the following form.

1. Objective moral rules exist
2. Objective moral rules cannot exist in a universe without God
3. God exists

The trick is to first have everyone agree with (1), as it seems to stand to reason, and then argue for (2) with a very specific definition of objective morality that the audience didn't have in mind at all when they agreed with (1).

I'm not sure I see a significant difference between the first 3 and the 2d 3. Either works.

Well, it seems to me that there is a significant difference between saying that morality cannot exist without God and saying that God is the best explanation for morality. The former necessitates defining morality in such a way that it would exclude all other explanations apart from an ultimate moral author, while the latter is a reasonable proposition that we can discus.

Don't we have consensus that objective morality consists in treating others the way we think we should be treated? Or to be more specific, that we should not steal?

Consensus doesn't entail truthfulness, does it?

[no evidence no belief]

You have to tell us what it is you're trying to prove, before we can determine if the evidence you provided was sufficient.

I've tried to tell you this numerous times. What I'm attempting to establish is that the Christian is justified in his belief in the resurrection

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY RESURRECTION? Was this a natural event like Caesar's assassination, or a supernatural event like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer flying into the sky?

I've attempted to do this by offering an objective method to determine the strength of that evidence by comparing it to the evidence for the assassination of Caesar as a control. Whenever you are ready we can begin to discuss it.

Oh Ok.

So you're saying that the resurrection is NOT a supernatural event similar to Rudolph flying into the clouds. You're saying it was a NATURAL event similar to the assassination of Caesar.

1) The evidence for the resurrection is as strong as the evidence of the assassination
2) The resurrection does not violate the laws of physics, and therefore is no less likely than the assassination
3) Therefore the non-supernatural event of the resurrection is as firmly established as the non-supernatural event of the assassination.

This actually makes sense.

You are absolutely right. The resurrection was not supernatural. It was natural. Jesus is not the Son of God. Jesus is just a historical figure who underwent an extremely rare event, just like Caesar. Christianity is rubbish.

I get it. You convinced me. You are correct.

If you are saying the resurrection was non-supernatural, then it's absolutely correct to use a non-supernatural historical event such as the assassination of Caesar as a control.



If on the other hand you are saying the resurrection was supernatural, then you CANNOT use a natural event as a control because the standard of evidence to demonstrate a violation of the laws of physics is higher than to demonstrate extraordinary events that do not violate the laws of physics.

If you wish to allege that a maggot infested rotting carcass came back to life and flew into the clouds, then you are alleging a SUPERNATURAL EVENT. In this case, you cannot use a natural event as control. Apples and oranges, dude. You have to use a supernatural event as a control. Like for example the rumor that Caesar was killed with magic knives made of unicorn foreskins hardened by fairy farts.

[no evidence no belief]

.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.

It goes something like this:

1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real

[Danmark]

Your claim that pseudonymous works “were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time� is patently false. As an example, consider the words of Serapion, as recorded by Eusebius, regarding the Gospel of Peter.

�For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.� – Church History 6.12.3

The uniform evidence from the early church suggests they made a point of rejecting works that were considered pseudonymous (1 Peter wasn’t one of them by the way) thus giving us evidence that pseudonymity was not an acceptable practise in the early church.

Your evidence does not show what you claim. Let's take your example, the Gospel of Peter. It's true that Serapion eventually rejected it as a forgery, but his methodology is pivotal to the discussion. Initially he accepted it as authentic and allowed its use because he thought it was written by Peter himself as the text claims. Later, after reading it himself he rejected it, NOT because he discovered it was a forgery. Rather he CONCLUDED it must be a forgery because he thought it could be interpreted to support the heresy of docetism.

See LOST CHRISTIANITIES, Ehrman, pp 15-16.

The problem is that this is one of several examples that the analysis of the early church focused on acceptable theology and dogma, not on direct evidence regarding whether a text was forged.

This is but one example.

"Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature," writes Bart Ehrman, "is the degree to which it was forged." The Homilies and Recognitions of Clement; Paul's letters to and from Seneca; Gospels by Peter, Thomas, and Philip; Jesus' correspondence with Abgar, letters by Peter and Paul in the New Testament--all forgeries. To cite just a few examples.
From a review of Ehrman's latest:
Forgery and Counterforgery:
The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
http://www.bartdehrman.com/

[Danmark]

You STILL aren’t addressing my argument about Matthew especially when we consider there is evidence, from the translations of Josephus’ for example, that it wasn’t unprecedented at the time to be able to translate works from Hebrew to Greek without leaving signs of translation. You simply complain and counter with “no one actually knows� as though that itself refutes the arguments. Further you still haven’t addressed my final argument on Matthew which I gave to you not once but twice. Here I’ll give it you again. Maybe three times the charm?

And I addressed your point with the bottom line that we have unanimous testimony that Matthew authored a Gospel. Wwhen combined with the fact that not one single manuscript tradition assigns Matthew to anyone other than Matthew we have a very strong case for authorship, at least as strong as other works from ancient history. You didn’t address this argument with your complaints above.

This is not persuasive. The vast majority of scholars agree that Matthew is dependent on Mark. Why would an eyewitness like Matthew rely on another text instead of writing his own account? In addition you argue that Matthew could have translated his own aramaic gospel into perfect Greek with no trace of translation. Even supposing the latter dubious claim to be true, "could have" is hardly persuasive.

Here are three (of many) authors with their analyses which leads to the same conclusion:

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):

But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

To borrow a claim from you, "If your only objection is 'cut and paste!' I will assume that is all you can do.

[WinePusher]

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.

It goes something like this:

1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real

LOL based on all this nonsense it seems that you are NOT familiar with the moral argument. Your ridiculous caricature is rubbish.

The moral argument has been subject to much scrutiny and a lot of philosophical scholarship and your response does not address any of the relevant issues regarding the argument. All you have done so far is regurgitate ad nauseum 'I want proof for talking donkeys and farting fairies.' Guess what, this subforum is for debating Christianity and Christianity does not claim that donkeys talk and fairies fart. You should try to gain a genuine understanding of what Christianity is and maybe it would clear up a lot of this confusion about talking donkeys and farting fairies.

The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?

[no evidence no belief]

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.

It goes something like this:

1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real

LOL based on all this nonsense it seems that you are NOT familiar with the moral argument. Your ridiculous caricature is rubbish.

The moral argument has been subject to much scrutiny and a lot of philosophical scholarship and your response does not address any of the relevant issues regarding the argument. All you have done so far is regurgitate ad nauseum 'I want proof for talking donkeys and farting fairies.' Guess what, this subforum is for debating Christianity and Christianity does not claim that donkeys talk and fairies fart. You should try to gain a genuine understanding of what Christianity is and maybe it would clear up a lot of this confusion about talking donkeys and farting fairies.

The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?

Oh, hey winepusher. You're back!

So, did you realize that 100 years is NOT one generation by any sensible definition of the word as used on planet earth? Talking of ridiculous arguments, that's what you were saying last time we spoke. So please let me know if you realized your mistake, or if we need to go over basic arithmetic and basic human reproductive timing again.

I will not talk about the moral argument as a vague concept. If you want to discuss it, present it here, either in your own words, or as a link to somebody else's wording that you concur with, and then I'll destroy it for you.

I apologize for thinking that the talking donkey is part of Christianity. I got confused. For a moment I thought that Numbers 22 was part of the Bible, but thanks to your clarification, I now realize it's one of the chapters in Harry Potter. My bad.

Is the talking snake also not part of Christianity?