Did Paul hijack Christianity?

[ambushed]

@begbert2

Seconding that naming other posters doesn’t help, ambushed. And I’m as close as anyone is getting to being on your side, dude.

Singling me out is not fair. I respect balance. If you had criticized the people who’ve so gallingly abused me as you’ve criticized me, that would have been very different. But you didn’t.

I’ve been at the bottom of those other poster’s personal verbal urinal for much of the duration of this thread. You should read my original post rather than the deliberately misleading excisions those pissing on me have chosen to carefully edit so as to starkly misrepresent me. Playing such games is easy and is completely unworthy of respect, even from you.

If you had read my original post, you would have seen that I was responding to a flagrant falsehood stating that I only treat the people who agree with me with respect. The post that listed the names of other posters – I have no idea why that’s considered objectionable, and I still don’t accept that it is – was to point out all the quality debaters who do NOT agree with me whom I both respect and have treated respectfully. And I also listed the posters who have shown such hate and contempt AS POSTERS WHO HAVE MADE CREDIBLE, QUALITY ARGUMENTS only to add in infantile arguments and personal abuse; but I listed them as producing several valid and rational arguments along with the abuse.

Since you pre-judged me based on the word games of those who have shown so much hatred and contempt for me – very likely Christian traditionalists who don’t appreciate my questioning the existence of their Sacred Savior – I will again repeat my comments in response to the lie that I only respect people who agree with me:

@ambushed

As to your later insult accusing me of allegedly only holding people who agree with me honest debaters, that, of course, is an obvious lie. Only begbert2 has agreed with me and we’ve never even interacted! Everyone else has taken the opposing position. I don’t agree with Diogenes, but he’s certainly an honest debater. I don’t agree with Skammer, but he was an honest debater. Captain Amazing made valuable contributions. I don’t agree with Sage Rat now or the last time we debated this, but he’s an honest debater, too. PBear42 doesn’t seem to agree with me, but he’s an honest debater who’s made valuable contributions. And there have been posters such as raindog and Czarcasm and others I’ve probably forgotten who’ve made valuable contributions as well even though it doesn’t appear they agree with me.

And it’s not a matter of an analysis by poster, either; it’s an analysis by individual argument or non-argument. Measure for Measure and Cosmodan and ITR champion have come up with legitimate and credible arguments, but clearly not all of their responses can be so categorized, as many of them have been fallacious, non-credible pseudo-arguments, insults, mockery, or the credulous repetition of their heedless cultural assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. Pleonast was doing well until he fallaciously argued that a one-phrase summary in my very first post here was magically a positive existential argument, and other gullible and irresponsible evaders jumped on that mind-reading bandwagon as well. I’ve had to deal with that sophomoric foot-stamping almost since the beginning, but sophomoric foot-stamping it remains. As I wrote to Skammer (as I stated above, he’s another credible and intellectually honest debater):

All I’m saying is that the default position – the null hypothesis – is that, like flying elephants, we should not assume the existence of something or someone for which there is no credible positive evidence. Your belief in a historical Jesus is an opinion / assumption based on no credible evidence at all. As such, you historicists bear the full burden of proof. What I’m doing in this thread is revealing all the fatal flaws in the positive historical evidence that has been brought out. That’s all a skeptic such as myself can do and has to do.

But I still have hope that any of the lax debaters can return to making credible arguments. They clearly have the intellectual capability, but whether they have the desire to try to make credible arguments seems increasingly doubtful. Contempt for me doesn’t justify all that empty, non-credible rhetoric.

I repeat: I cannot control whether debate opponents provide rational arguments or whether they just rattle off empty rhetoric with no credible argument attached. The exasperation you’ve seen from me is for all the posts or comments which lack a cogent, well-informed, logical argument.

[Marley23]

@ambushed

If you had read my original post, you would have seen that I was responding to a flagrant falsehood stating that I only treat the people who agree with me with respect. The post that listed the names of other posters – I have no idea why that’s considered objectionable, and I still don’t accept that it is – was to point out all the quality debaters who do NOT agree with me whom I both respect and have treated respectfully. And I also listed the posters who have shown such hate and contempt AS POSTERS WHO HAVE MADE CREDIBLE, QUALITY ARGUMENTS only to add in infantile arguments and personal abuse; but I listed them as producing several valid and rational arguments along with the abuse.

ambushed, AGAIN, you are not allowed to insult other posters or call them liars in this forum. I didn’t originally respond to this comment specificially -

@ambushed

As to your later insult accusing me of allegedly only holding people who agree with me honest debaters, that, of course, is an obvious lie.

• and moderated your comments more generally, but since you’re calling people liars again, I’m giving you a formal warning for it. I am overlooking this comment because you told the mods it was from a draft of an older post and you didn’t mean to use it.

@ambushed

What about them, infantile one?

So that’s not included as part of the warning. But please be more careful in the future.

[begbert2]

@ambushed

Singling me out is not fair. I respect balance. If you had criticized the people who’ve so gallingly abused me as you’ve criticized me, that would have been very different. But you didn’t.

I’ve been at the bottom of those other poster’s personal verbal urinal for much of the duration of this thread. You should read my original post rather than the deliberately misleading excisions those pissing on me have chosen to carefully edit so as to starkly misrepresent me. Playing such games is easy and is completely unworthy of respect, even from you.

If you had read my original post, you would have seen that I was responding to a flagrant falsehood stating that I only treat the people who agree with me with respect. The post that listed the names of other posters – I have no idea why that’s considered objectionable, and I still don’t accept that it is – was to point out all the quality debaters who do NOT agree with me whom I both respect and have treated respectfully. And I also listed the posters who have shown such hate and contempt AS POSTERS WHO HAVE MADE CREDIBLE, QUALITY ARGUMENTS only to add in infantile arguments and personal abuse; but I listed them as producing several valid and rational arguments along with the abuse.

Since you pre-judged me based on the word games of those who have shown so much hatred and contempt for me – very likely Christian traditionalists who don’t appreciate my questioning the existence of their Sacred Savior – I will again repeat my comments in response to the lie that I only respect people who agree with me:

Still not helping, dude.

If the debate is about the historicity of Jesus, or Paul’s l33t hijacking skills, that’s an interesting debate. If it’s a debate about how terrible various posters are ate debating , that’s not interesting - and it’s in the wrong forum.

If you really can’t let go of this, I’d suggest making a thread in the Pit about it and linking it in every post you make in this thread. Several times per thread, if necessary; whatever it takes.

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

Still not helping, dude.

If the debate is about the historicity of Jesus, or Paul’s l33t hijacking skills, that’s an interesting debate. If it’s a debate about how terrible various posters are ate debating , that’s not interesting - and it’s in the wrong forum.

If you really can’t let go of this, I’d suggest making a thread in the Pit about it and linking it in every post you make in this thread. Several times per thread, if necessary; whatever it takes.

sound advice

[Alan_Smithee]

Since ambushed has returned to the thread, I hope you and Marley23 will allow me to offer a partial apology for my comment comparing you to a crank. My intention was just that - to make the comparison, not to accuse you of actually being a crank. It’s the difference between telling someone, “Quit acting like an asshole,” and saying, “You asshole!” A subtle distinction, I admit, and probably crossing the line for GD either way, but since you’re here, I thought I’d explain.

@Marley23

ambushed, AGAIN, you are not allowed to insult other posters or call them liars in this forum. I didn’t originally respond to this comment specificially -

@ambushed

As to your later insult accusing me of allegedly only holding people who agree with me honest debaters, that, of course, is an obvious lie.

• and moderated your comments more generally, but since you’re calling people liars again, I’m giving you a formal warning for it.

Thanks, Marley.

Now that I’ve made my peace, ambushed, if you’d like to try offering some evidence for the use of the phrases Brothers in the Lord and Brother of the Lord as you’ve described them by the Jerusalem church without your annoying insults, I’ll return to this thread to debate. Otherwise, I won’t bother. Everyone else is convinced anyway, and I’m not going to continue wading through your tirades to pluck out the few strands of actual argument if you won’t even respond to a basic and repeated request for a cite.