Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[centauri]

Not at all. What I am saying is that there are possible answers to these apparent problems, which means that they aren't necessarily problems. If my answers are subjective and based upon my personal whims and preferences, why is that also not true of your objections? The knife cuts both ways.

Yes it does and I’m glad to see you recognizing that your truth is subjective.

That makes validation subjective as well, which renders the issues circular, with no resolution.

It doesn’t render the Bible as a superior form of truth and history, nor does it render it as being inspired directly from a supernatural male being that lives in the sky.

 

You misread my answer, I never said that my truth is subjective, I am not a postmodernist; I believe that truth is objective and have a valid reason for believing so. Therefore, the rest of your answer is moot. I have not based my arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, only on the fact that the Bible records valid history.

I've never seen you provide a list of objective moral “truths”, therefore your answer here is moot.

Your personal preferences and opinions about what is objective and what isn’t aren’t binding on anyone else.

Many of your facts are based on subjective conclusions.

You have not established many parts of the Bible as being valid history, you just assert that they are.

First validate as factual things like the Garden of Eden, the Exodus involving millions of people, the resurrection of dead saints, the birth story of Jesus, or even the resurrection of “Jesus of Nazareth” and then you’ll have a better starting place for continued preaching.

 

LNC:

However, if you read my answer (again) you will noticed that I said if my answers were subjective, then your objections were subjective also. Is that what you are arguing by your answer, that your objections are merely your subjective whims? If so, then they are not real problems for me, just for you. However, you don't seem to be indicating that, so I will also assume that you don't think that my answers are merely subjective either unless you can give valid reasons for believing so, which you haven't done.

You haven’t established that your version of reality is objective.

Validation is subjective as well, which renders the issues circular, with no resolution, as I already stated.

But this game should be good for another 59 pages, at least.

 

LNC:

The term "reasonable" is used in our legal system, so it must not be as subjective as you think. Maybe instead a making assertions about my "history" and my "version" of truth, you could instead give your definition of these terms so we can come to some agreement on their usage.

 

centauri: No, I think it's best that you go back to square one and start making the same claims all over again. Then it can all get rehashed for another 20 pages.

 

LNC:

I am not sure what you mean by your answer and how it applies to what I said. Nor did you give a definition of what you mean by history and truth.

I think my initial estimate was too low.

This ought to be good for another 100 pages.

That’s why I suggested many weeks ago that you write out the highlights of your manifesto, providing a list of absolute objective morals, and post them in a new thread, calling it something like “Truth that all people should recognize.”

 

LNC:

I don't believe that I have defined any group as a cult here on this thread, so just because others may do so, is not really relevant to our discussion. The important point is that you set a definition for the term "cult" that would define many other groups that are not generally considered cults, and that should indicate that you have either cast too broad a net, or misused the term.

However, even if the term "cult" properly applied to Christianity, it still wouldn't mean that Christianity is untrue, so I don't know what your application of the term to Christianity does for you.

 

centauri: The issue came up because you rely heavily on cult writings as validation for history and reality.

You’ve appealed to the authority of these cult writings over and over again.

They are not however the sacred cow you consider them to be, nor is the character called “Jesus of Nazareth”.

 

LNC:

Again, you didn't address what I said in my post, you simply are rehashing your point again which is contrary to what I have written in my posts. I don't appeal to the Bible as an authority or as a sacred writing, I appeal to it as history. Would you mind addressing your response more directly to what I have written rather than creating straw man arguments of my position so that you can more easily knock them down? I don't think that you are being fair to me or my positions.

Again, you have not established that it is valid history and as such, you are simply rehashing your point again.

You already appealed to the Bible and Catholic Church as an authority when you decided that the Gospel of Peter wasn’t canon.

I don’t think you are being fair to me.

Your accusation of me creating a straw man is unfounded.

You’re the one that appeals to cult writings as valid history.

Cults often promote belief based on faith and submission to authority.

Cult promotional advertisng isn't automatically history.

[Kuroikaze]

 

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from his nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

 

You're kidding right? This is the worst kind of bull shitting I have ever heard.

 

Well I guess I am not totally surprised, C.S. Lewis tried to make a similar argument in his books, but to me it seems like you are just playing with words.

 

Let me point out a flaw here, if morality flows from god's nature not his mind (as if you can separate the two somehow ) then this means his mind is a unnecessary component in your argument. I find this fairly suspect given your claim that "god" must have a mind. Since a mind is unnecessary then perhaps morality stems from the immutable nature of physical reality. Perhaps there is something immutable in existence itself.

Why not? You have been claiming that would not work precisely because you have been arguing for a being with an ordered and intelligent mind as being necessary.

 

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, and you cannot switch sides in a argument midway though to cover you for your arguments deficiencies.

[agnosticator]

You previously said:

In philosophy a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent" If you consider god as personal, which you most certainly seem to then your proposition cannot be considered objective because it is being asserted by a mind, and therefore is subjective, the only difference is that the subject has been switched from humanity to god.

 

Something that would be objective would be say...gravity, which functions exactly the same on Jupiter where there is no life as it does here on earth. Morality is, and cannot, be the same, because there cannot be morality unless there are at least two beings present. In a universe where no life exists there is no such thing as morality.

 

 

LNC replied:

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from His nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

 

I missed this because I didn't read all the posts until after I replied to LNC. He finally let this slip and you nailed him to the wall!

 

The obvious conclusion:

 

KUROIKAZE:

Let me point out a flaw here, if morality flows from god's nature not his mind (as if you can separate the two somehow ) then this means his mind is a unnecessary component in your argument. I find this fairly suspect given your claim that "god" must have a mind. Since a mind is unnecessary then perhaps morality stems from the immutable nature of physical reality. Perhaps there is something immutable in existence itself.

[NotBlinded]

 

Fallacy of wishy-washy?

Isn't he contradicting his earlier argument that the Jesus Seminar had an anti-supernatural presumption because they cherry pick what parts of the bible are true? So, why is he cherry picking the bible then? Doesn't this mean he has an anti-supernatural presumption and so we shouldn't trust anything he says? He's also contradicting himself when he said before that nobody considers the bible mythological yet now he's admitting some things in the bible are mythology yet when I called him out on this before, he denied he ever said some parts of the bible aren't true. I also think it's hypocritical that he can cherry pick whatever parts of the bible he wants to "prove" the resurrection is true but then he turns around and tells us what scriptures we can and cannot use against his claims. This is one of the reasons I gave up debating with him. He doesn't get why these other verses we cite are important in our criticism and I don't see the point in debating with someone who wants to screen what evidence we present and only accepts what evidence he approves of. Besides, last I checked, this was not LNC's thread and he wasn't a mod to tell us what scriptures we can quote and which are unacceptable yet he acts like he owns the site. Now he'll probably respond a month from now and deny he ever said any of this, then a month later say the very things he denied. Basically, LNC drives me nuts.

I am right there with you Neon. I can no longer try to keep up with someone that changes what he says in order to be right. He's pretty good at just changing certain parts or addressing different areas with different answers within the same concept. Yes, it is very annoying. I don't even know if he realizes he does this. It may just be a way for it to make sense to himself while the rest of us look on with this look on our little round faces:

[NotBlinded]

 

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from his nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

 

You're kidding right? This is the worst kind of bull shitting I have ever heard.

 

Well I guess I am not totally surprised, C.S. Lewis tried to make a similar argument in his books, but to me it seems like you are just playing with words.

 

Let me point out a flaw here, if morality flows from god's nature not his mind (as if you can separate the two somehow ) then this means his mind is a unnecessary component in your argument. I find this fairly suspect given your claim that "god" must have a mind. Since a mind is unnecessary then perhaps morality stems from the immutable nature of physical reality. Perhaps there is something immutable in existence itself.

Why not? You have been claiming that would not work precisely because you have been arguing for a being with an ordered and intelligent mind as being necessary.

 

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, and you cannot switch sides in a argument midway though to cover you for your arguments deficiencies.

This splitting of concepts that shouldn't be split will not allow LNC to ever put forth a congruent argument that any of us could hope to follow, IMO.

 

Good catch.

[Ouroboros]

I am right there with you Neon. I can no longer try to keep up with someone that changes what he says in order to be right. He's pretty good at just changing certain parts or addressing different areas with different answers within the same concept. Yes, it is very annoying. I don't even know if he realizes he does this. It may just be a way for it to make sense to himself while the rest of us look on with this look on our little round faces:

It's a method, and I think he's doing it intentionally, fully knowing how it works.

[Ouroboros]

Why wouldn't the same explanation work regarding atheists? I see no reason why it wouldn't using your logic. The truth is that it wouldn't be a valid explanation for either side of the argument.

False dichotomy.

 

It is just a broad brush approach that explains nothing.

Red herring.

[Ouroboros]

I seriously wonder how you know for a fact that God's nature is unchangeable. Even the Bible said he changed his mind on creating humans.

Gen 6:6-7, God regrets for creating mankind. First, he changed his view on his own creation. And secondly, obviously God can create things that are not good since he takes the blame and burden of creating a faulty humanity. Ergo, not all is good which comes from God, and God is not immutable. The philosophical God is not the same as Judeo-Christian God.

[Antlerman]

I am right there with you Neon. I can no longer try to keep up with someone that changes what he says in order to be right. He's pretty good at just changing certain parts or addressing different areas with different answers within the same concept. Yes, it is very annoying. I don't even know if he realizes he does this. It may just be a way for it to make sense to himself while the rest of us look on with this look on our little round faces:

It's a method, and I think he's doing it intentionally, fully knowing how it works.

If so, then he is immoral. And as such is a hypocrite and is going to hell according to his beliefs he argues for, which he doesn't believe by not following them.

 

 

 

 

I think I might just say, "LNC, you've won the argument. Here's your reward:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

What did he win exactly?

[Ouroboros]

What did he win exactly?

My point exactly. I suspect he's using as a training ground. Testing out his rhetorical powers and strengthening his arguments. That's what I would do.

[LNC]

On the matter of the guards only Matthew mentions them. While Matthew says that the guards were present when the angel rolled away the boulder from the tomb when Mary Magdalene and co arrived, none of the other accounts mention said guards. In fact all the other accounts make it clear that the boulder had already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene arrived. Matthew also makes mention of several other unlikely incidents which were otherwise lost to history, such as the slaughter of every baby in Bethlehem and the dead rising from the tombs and "appearing to many". I'm not sure about your stance on the slaughter of the infants, but even you conceded that the dead rising from to tomb is unlikely to have happened. Given that Matthew seems to have a penchant for making stuff up, and his tale of guards being posted at the tomb is suspiciously absent from every other account, why should we believe that guards were placed at the tomb in the first place?

 

First, I haven't said that the dead rising was unlikely, I simply don't argue it as part of my case for the resurrection. Second, it is not clear at what point the stone was rolled away and when Mary and the others arrived in Matthew's account. It simply says that they went to the tomb, then tells of the stone being rolled away, but doesn't indicate that they had arrived to witness it. Combining that with Mark's and Luke's accounts, we would judge that their arrival was after the stone had been rolled away. Third, regarding the slaughter of the babies in Bethlehem, there are a number of reasons that we might not see that recorded in historical accounts. One reason would be that Bethlehem was a small town at the time and there probably were relatively few babies actually killed (possibly from 10-30). I say relatively few not to diminish the fact that he carried out this gruesome act, but to say that it was small compared to many of his other acts. Second, this type of behavior was consistent with what was known about Herod. He was paranoid, having put to death one wife and her mother and several of his own sons.

 

Now, you say that Matthew has a penchant for making stuff up and I would ask how you know this to be true? What evidence do you have in support of this assertion? I don't suggest that conclusion myself, nor do I think you can support it. The fact that one account emphasizes one aspect of a story that the others do not is not what I would call suspicious, unless one is already prone to be suspicious anyway. I simply would say that one has a desire to emphasize aspects that would be meaningful to his or her audience. I don't see that it would be unusual to have guards posted given the events of that week, especially the way that Jesus entered into Jerusalem that week and his cleansing of the Temple. He was put to death in an atmosphere of unrest during that week.

[LNC]

So, if I'm reading this right, kinds does not equal species, only a representative of certain categories? So not every species on earth survived the flood? Would you say that evolution accounts for today's biological diversity? I ask because years back I was debating evolution with my youth pastor. He asked me if I thought every species in the world would fit on the ark, and when I said no, seemed to think that was an argument against evolution. It sounded more like an argument for it to me, but I let it go. So I'm curious as to your take.

 

(Hooray! I noticed I left the "y" off of every, and then found that I have at last earned the coveted edit button)

 

I don't see any reason to equate kinds to species. I don't believe that they would have had the same categories back then that we do today, so to say that kinds would equal what we call a species would be hard to fathom. I would say that you are correct in saying that not every species survived the flood. How many did or didn't, I don't know. When you ask about evolution accounting for today's biological diversity, I would say yes and no. I find no real data to support macro-evolution, so I wouldn't account for biological diversity from that. However, I do see support for micro-evolution and know that it has contributed to some of the diversity that we see. Since I wasn't there to hear the reasoning between you and your youth pastor, I am not in a position to judge that conversation.

 

That edit button comes in handy...glad to see it here.

[Kuroikaze]

However, I do see support for micro-evolution and know that it has contributed to some of the diversity that we see.

 

I find it hilarious how many creationists/IDers think there is some magical limit to evolutionary change, and then call that "micro-evolution" even though it is a complete misrepresentation of the definition of that word.

[Shyone]

 

 

Now, you say that Matthew has a penchant for making stuff up and I would ask how you know this to be true?

 

Apologetics really suck, you know that?

 

The most fanatastic stuff imaginable, unbelievable, and silly is not in all of the books. What do you suppose happened to the dead that arose? Did they just go back and lie back down in the graves? What about inheritance problems? Wives or husbands that had remarried? Did they die of natural causes? Again?

 

Virgin birth? "Oh, by the way, Jesus was born of a virgin." But everyone else missed it? Never heard about it? That's rather impressive, wouldn't you think?

 

The guards are the modification of the story that had to be added because of the skepticism of the audience.

 

"How do you know that his followers didn't just steal the body and make stuff up?"

 

"Um, ah, well, there were... witnesses!

 

"But the witnesses were also followers."

 

"OH! I see what you're getting at. I forgot to mention the GUARDS! Yeah, that's it! Uh, the guards were posted there in case someone came to steal the body. Here, let make this.. little... addition...."

 

65. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go, make it as sure as ye can.

66. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them.

 

"And, let me erase this little.. bit... here..."

 

43. there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.

44. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

45. And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.

46. And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

 

"Now do you believe?"

 

"Well, then, we believe. That makes sense!"

 

Apologetics really suck. Really. How can you twist, and lie, and still not see that the people writing the gospels had some things they felt they had to present to their respective audiences to get them to believe?

 

Look closely, and you can tell exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it. You could retitle the New Testament, "Birth of a Legend."

[LNC]

Don't you think it's highly unlikely that a person who would experience such a supernatural event would not convert? And if they converted, they most likely would be just as active as the disciples were? Today, a person only need to see a patter on a toast, looking like Virgin Mary, for the whole world starting to make pilgrimage to see the "miracle." So what wouldn't a soldier do if angels came down from the sky, moved the rock, earthquake, sky darken, the dead person walking out, etc. I mean, it's a huge stretch to think you could buy someone to keep quiet about that, right? Overall, the story seems more like a later addition. I think that the disciples claimed the body was gone, the Romans and/or the Sanhedrin did discover that the disciples had stolen the body, and they proclaimed it. But the Christians, in defense, and hiding the truth, said that the Romans and/or Sanhedrin was lying instead. So who is lying here? The rumor that the body was stolen, or the rumor that Jesus was resurrected? Which one is more likely from a natural standpoint?

 

Judas saw many, if not all of the miracles and yet he didn't trust Jesus, so why should I believe that an earthquake alone would make someone trust him? I don't know that the people who see visions or supposed images of Mary trust in Jesus, it seems that it makes them trust in Mary instead. Mary has no authority or power to save anyone according to the Bible. To speculate that it is a later addition is just that, speculation. It is not based upon empirical evidence. Again, you speculate that Christians are hiding something, but you have no evidence of that. I see no reason to accept your explanation as being valid.

[LNC]

That's an interesting consideration, Hans.

 

LNC, I still don't understand why the guards were allowed to live. If their lives depended on fulfilling their task of guarding the tomb, killing them makes the story that the body was stolen more authentic. If advancing the story that the body was stolen was so important to the Romans, they surely would not have spared a couple of guards' lives. Not when so much was at stake.

 

Phanta

 

Edit: changed "weren't" to "were"

 

The Gospel says that they were used to promote the false story. To kill them would leave the question unanswered as to what happened to Jesus and no direct eyewitnesses to support their story. Other than that, I would be speculating.

[Ouroboros]

Judas saw many, if not all of the miracles and yet he didn't trust Jesus, so why should I believe that an earthquake alone would make someone trust him?

So you are extrapolating a made up story unto reality? Basically, the reality reflects the story instead of the opposite?

 

In reality, people believe more than what they see, not less. Judas is an incomprehensible character in the story. I don't know anyone who claims to have seen Mary on a Toast lose their faith the next day.

 

You need to get a grip on reality.

 

I don't know that the people who see visions or supposed images of Mary trust in Jesus, it seems that it makes them trust in Mary instead. Mary has no authority or power to save anyone according to the Bible. To speculate that it is a later addition is just that, speculation.

It's a more probable speculation than to speculate that miracles happened just then, there, and only for that purpose, but never again.

 

It's ridiculous what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that people who see miracles would not believe, while Jesus were doing (supposedly) a whole bunch of miracles to make people believe, and not only that, but his disciples too!

 

If miracles are so crappy to use as evidence, then God would have known that from start, and used whatever method you are using instead, because you're method is sooooo much more efficient. I think you have convert just slightly above zero people from your non-miracle based arguments for Jesus existence. Good for you!

 

Now maybe we can talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It exists, because it doesn't do miracles either, so it must therefore exist.

 

It is not based upon empirical evidence. Again, you speculate that Christians are hiding something, but you have no evidence of that.

That's a false representation of anything I've said. But it doesn't surprise me coming from you.

 

I see no reason to accept your explanation as being valid.

Of course you don't. You're blind.

 

Even though Frodo knew the dangers of the Ring taking control over him, he still continued his journey. It must be true. Such heroics. It can't be just a story. Or that Gollum tried to steal it from him, it only shows how powerful that ring was over him. So the story must have happened. (And magical rings exist)

[Shyone]

 

Judas saw many, if not all of the miracles and yet he didn't trust Jesus, so why should I believe that an earthquake alone would make someone trust him?

I can think of another reason Judas didn't trust Jesus.

 

Jesus never performed any miracles, and Judas saw through any tricks he may have conjured.

 

It's like when someone who used to work for Benny Hinn or another faith-healing evangelist turns the evangelist in for embezzlement. They don't feel that it's right to cheat people. Or trick people.

 

The Gospels let that little tidbit squeeze in without realizing that we would then know that Judas did not think of Jesus as more than a man.

 

The "doubting Thomas" story is a fiction to show that someone who didn't believe actually saw Jesus after the Crucifixion. It never happened, but it sure makes you want to believe, doesn't it?

[Ouroboros]

I can think of another reason Judas didn't trust Jesus.

 

Jesus never performed any miracles, and Judas saw through any tricks he may have conjured.

That's a very good point.

 

Judas is the proof that the miracle stories were later additions. How else would he doubt the miraculous nature of Jesus after seeing them all?

 

The ball is back in the apologists court.

[RationalOkie]

LNC - What does LNC stand for? A church group like "Living Nordic Church" or "Live Nude Chickens"? If it's your REAL name then obviously just state that it's your initials. I already know that you live in the bible belt.

[LNC]

You're throwing out any other possibilities in favor of your two. So there are either a supernatural possibility or there is the possibility of overpowering guards? That's all? Only one of the texts mention the guards at all. That means the probability of any guards is diminished. But if we assume the guards were present we know from that very text that those same guards were open to taking bribes in exchange for their silence. So why is it unthinkable that a bribe is out of the question? To pay the guards, take the body, have the guards claim the guarded the tomb continually, and yet the tomb is empty is quite the miracle I think and well within the realm of possibility as laid out within the text itself.

 

As for the 500, that is simply a number attested to by only Paul and no one else. It exists only in a single place. It may as well be a million or five persons. It is just an unverifiable number. It may be based in reality or it may be hyperbole. Until it can be corroborated it really doesn't matter. There's no way for us to know if anyone saw anything based on Paul's statement.

 

We also have no idea if anyone recanted anything. Nothing is recorded so it would be an argument from silence to assert either way. To our knowledge they did not. Tradition maintains they did not. Many believers did so it is within the realm of possibility especially considering how easily they abandoned ship at the scene in the garden. After a year of personally living and interacting with "jesus" and performing miracles under his tutelage should have been convincing enough. Even G.Luke concedes in the story of the Rich man and Lazarus that a dead man returning back to life isn't enough to convince people but only the teachings of Moses are what will do this. The apostles should have been aware of this and not required the resurrection nor should anyone else.

 

mwc

 

I have no evidence to support any other possibilities, I only have evidence to support the account of the eyewitnesses. Your two options are not the only two that have been offered over time. What we must do is look at each possibility and determine which best fits the evidence. What reason would the guards have to take the body and who would be paying the bribe? Suppose that the disciples did bribe them to take the body, then how do you explain the appearances to over 500 people at different times, locations, circumstances, etc.?

 

When Paul wrote about the 500, he said that many of them were still alive and could therefore verify what he was saying. He wasn't making this claim in a vacuum. Therefore, it could be corroborated by the audience to whom he wrote the letter. The fact that we cannot now is irrelevant as we cannot for any history more than 100 years ago as that generation has passed. It seems that you are setting a standard that would cause us to distrust all history that we have not personally experienced as it may be hyperbole.

 

No, we don't know if anyone recanted; however, if any of the main eyewitnesses had, we would most likely have a record of that as Christianity was not popular among those in power. It would have been in their interest to record if Paul, Peter, or any of the other leaders had recanted. We would also know if large groups recanted. However, since we have no record, it seems that we cannot make an argument from silence.

 

Regarding your last statement, the story doesn't say that they have the Law, which was the only other means that the Jews would have known for salvation, it says "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." IOW, if they have not paid attention to the messages from them, sending someone from the dead will have no effect either. This had nothing to do with Jesus death and resurrection as it had not occurred yet. Christ's death and resurrection is a gift, not something that is forced upon a person. We are without hope apart from it.

[Ouroboros]

LNC - What does LNC stand for? A church group like "Living Nordic Church" or "Live Nude Chickens"? If it's your REAL name then obviously just state that it's your initials. I already know that you live in the bible belt.

It's not his real name. I know his name, and we'll keep it that way.

 

LNC stands for Logical Non-Contradiction. *shaking my head*

[bdp]

It seems that you are setting a standard that would cause us to distrust all history that we have not personally experienced as it may be hyperbole.

 

 

Exactly.

[bdp]

 

 

No, we don't know if anyone recanted; however, if any of the main eyewitnesses had, we would most likely have a record of that as Christianity was not popular among those in power. It would have been in their interest to record if Paul, Peter, or any of the other leaders had recanted. We would also know if large groups recanted. However, since we have no record, it seems that we cannot make an argument from silence.

 

 

We may not have it because the early church destroyed evidence that disproved it.

[RationalOkie]

LNC - What does LNC stand for? A church group like "Living Nordic Church" or "Live Nude Chickens"? If it's your REAL name then obviously just state that it's your initials. I already know that you live in the bible belt.

It's not his real name. I know his name, and we'll keep it that way.

 

LNC stands for Logical Non-Contradiction. *shaking my head*

 

O.K...fair enough. I just wish his Yeshua would hurry up and rupture these ...sorry rapture these loons. I'm tired of arguing with them.