Raf

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.

oh

Highly amused. Great big meanie.

Sigh. Vince has been teaching, for at least 20 years, that you could lose your salvation. Here's a book recommendation for you. :)

Likewise.

Honestly, my reply: I could believe in Santa Claus, Allah, the Easter Bunny and Slender Man tomorrow and that would not make them exist. The existence of life proves life. It does not prove a deity. But even if it did, it would not prove a tribal deity who can't get his story straight. Existence is not contingent on belief. And insistence is not evidence.

How am i supposed to argue with a coconut. :)

The way it works is... you provide the proof, and people believe. Not you make the claim and it;s everyone else's job to inform you where the stench of B.S. is coming from.

This actor played... Professor Jules Hilbert Michael Dorsey Stanley Motss Sam Daniels

Ok, so I'm going to tread on this very carefully. A few years ago, Ken Hamm debate Bill Nye on the subject of evolution. Ken is not a scientist, but he's a young earth creationist who's studied the subject extensively and is no slouch. (He's an idiot, in my opinion, but he's not a stupid idiot). Bill Nye is not a scientist either, but he is an advocate for science education. So both men were asked, what would change your mind? Ken said, Nothing. Nothing will change his mind. Nothing will shake his faith. Nothing can convince him that the Word of God is not true. Bill Nye's answer: Evidence. Show me the evidence and I will change my mind. I don't think it's a virtue to say I won't change my mind. I will. But with evidence. And that's the key difference here. CLAIMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Appeals to emotion are not evidence. Non sequiturs (like Romans 1) are not evidence. When we say something like "the disciples saw him and did not believe," we are making an assumption that the story told in that particular gospel is true. It's not. It's a claim, and one that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. Mary Magdalene's silence is a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. When did Peter get to the tomb? John gives us a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. You know, when The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield contradicts Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, which contradicts Spider-Man Homecoming starring Tom Holland, which contradicts Spider-Man starring Nicholas Hammond, you don't try to harmonize the four accounts. Rather, you recognize each as a work of fiction interpreted by different storytellers. But name those storytellers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though those were NOT the authors of those books) and suddenly they're historians! They're fiction writers. So believe what you want, but real investigation does not begin with a conclusion.