Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[Mountain Man]

Sure, no problem. Done. It makes no difference.

It makes no difference only because you continue to dishonestly truncate the second quote:

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

If it makes no difference, as you claim, then go ahead and put the full statement, as I've presented it, in your signature quote.

Of course, adding the "it could be argued that" clause, which was in no way present in your original statement...

It's inferred. The phrase "at worst" implies there are a range of possibilities and is precisely why the two statements are not contradictory.

[Roy]

It makes no difference only because you continue to dishonestly truncate the second quote:

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

If it makes no difference, as you claim, then go ahead and put the full statement, as I've presented it, in your signature quote.

Again, done. Though I've removed the links due to the 500 character limit.

Any other superficial changes you want made, or are you going to stop wasting my time now?

But none of this makes any difference. You contradicted yourself twice, by claiming that there was enough data and Luke's account had been tested, and then that the data might incomplete and the account was possibly untestable.

It's inferred. The phrase "at worst" implies there are a range of possibilities and is precisely why the two statements are not contradictory.

So what? If Luke's account has been tested, it is not possibly untestable. There is a range of possibilities in tossing a coin, but if you've already tossed it and got 'H', then 'T' is no longer possible. You contradicted yourself, and no amount of wriggling or rewriting will get you off the hook.

[Mountain Man]

Again, done.

Thank you.

[Charles]

Any other superficial changes you want made, or are you going to stop wasting my time now?

I enjoy reading these posts so I would not say it is a complete waste of time though I get your point. He sure did contradict himself and there is no escape.

[Mountain Man]

I enjoy reading these posts so I would not say it is a complete waste of time though I get your point. He sure did contradict himself and there is no escape.

Nope.

Maybe if I flip it around then you guys will finally get it... or maybe not, which is fine with me because it amuses me that people will look at Roy's signature and say, "Huh? How did Mountain Man destroy his own argument? "

Anyway:

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence. [However, Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

You see? No contradiction.

[Roy]

Nope.

Maybe if I flip it around then you guys will finally get it... or maybe not, which is fine with me because it amuses me that people will look at Roy's signature and say, "Huh? How did Mountain Man destroy his own argument? "

Hint: not every-one is as dumb as you are.

Anyway:

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence. [However, Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

You see? No contradiction.

So Luke's account is still both untestable and bang-on accurate!?

[Mountain Man]

As I expected, you still don't get it.

[Roy]

As I expected, you still don't get it.

I've got it. You stupidly claimed that something that can't be tested is bang-on accurate, and you're trying to pretend that makes sense.

[Mountain Man]

I've got it. You stupidly claimed that something that can't be tested is bang-on accurate, and you're trying to pretend that makes sense.

I said that "at worst" it was untestable. It's obviously not actually untestable given the fact that there is, in fact, quite a bit of evidence to support the conclusion that Luke's history was accurate. I conceded that the data is incomplete, but you appear to have read this to mean "non-existent".

I'm sorry, man, but this just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

[Roy]

I said that "at worst" it was untestable.

You also said "...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census...". No wriggle room there.

It's obviously not actually untestable...

Bingo! But then, if it's obviously not untestable, why did you use say it was one of the "historical points on which the Bible can't be tested" and that it was "at worst, untestable"? It can't be "at worst, untestable" if it's obviously not untestable. Right?

...given the fact that there is, in fact, quite a bit of evidence to support the conclusion that Luke's history was accurate.

Yeah, you keep saying that. But since your cited sources disagree on when the census was, who took it and even what Luke meant, why should anyone care?

I conceded that the data is incomplete, but you appear to have read this to mean "non-existent".

Can't support your ridiculously contradictory claims, so pretend some-one else misunderstood them? Not going to work.

[Catholicity]

It makes me sad you guys would worship a God who would send people to hell. Says a lot about you as people really.

God doesn't send people to hell, people choose their own fate

[JimL]

God doesn't send people to hell, people choose their own fate

Don't be silly, many people in the world don't even know about the god you believe in, and if they don't know him, they can't believe in him, and if they don't believe in him, well, no heaven for them. Hugh Heffner's existence has ended, enjoy your life.

[Sparko]

Don't be silly, many people in the world don't even know about the god you believe in, and if they don't know him, they can't believe in him, and if they don't believe in him, well, no heaven for them. Hugh Heffner's existence has ended, enjoy your life.

you don't go to hell for not believing in God. You go to hell for sinning.

[JimL]

you don't go to hell for not believing in God. You go to hell for sinning.

No you don't, we are all sinners, remember. If the above were true, we would all go to hell. According to your religion that is!

[demi-conservative]

It makes me sad you guys would worship a God who would send people to hell. Says a lot about you as people really.

Makes me sad people like you want to deny reality of God who sends people to hell. Repent!!!