You and I see things quite differently as to how you've behaved in the debate.
Point to an issue of yours that I have either avoided, or did not address. I will be gladly to address it right now.
It's a bit ironic that you mention this. I tried to engage you in discussing this silly "burden of proof" business... but guess what? You totally ignored it. Refused to address it. Would not respond to it.
But I can't debate with you so long as you keep shouting "burden of proof." In my view of things, the concept itself is quite juvenile. I could show you that except, well... you refuse to talk about it. Instead, you continually repeat, "Burden of proof! Burden of proof!" It really is impossible to debate with someone who has such a skewed idea of what constitutes debate. Sorry to have to put it that way.
Please show me where I refused to address it. Because as far as I can remember, I have twice now either given you a link supporting my position on the burden of proof or quoted directly from an expert.
I did the first time based on your response. The first time I supplied a link, I was doing so in regards to your response. What I quoted is the accepted stance. You made a claim that you are not will to support fully (yes, on occasion you have supplied some support to your view, yet, it is seldom that you do).
Now, instead of actually addressing the issue, you once again just dismiss the idea because you don't accept it. That is how much of this debate is going.
In case any lurkers might think seriously of Blood's claim here, what has actually happened is that each time I tell him that his opinion is a fine opinion, he accuses me of brushing him off, dismissing him. So far as I can tell, in his view, one must take either Black or else White and never ever budge. To acknowledge that the other guy holds a fine personal opinion, then, is to dismiss the guy. That's my take on it, anyway.
You stating, that is a fine opinion, and then not actually addressing the opinion, is being dismissive.
And no, I'm not making this black and white. If you actually read what I have said throughout this thread, I have admitted mistakes, that I could be wrong. Meaning, that I have budged on my stance. As for being black and white, that is a baseless claim. And really, to try to attack my character, as you are doing here, is just one more dismissive attack.
Next time you see Michael or any other of your Heroes, tell them to come here and see if they can argue such a silly claim with me. I am ready.
Do you really not see how particularly silly it is in this case? You want me to "prove" that I doubt the gospels were first presented as non-fiction? I mean, how very strange is such a request. You want me to open my head and show you my doubt?
You just can't understand that I don't think like you do. I don't believe that either Black or else White must be true. Why on earth would I try to prove that White is true, then?
Heck, the very concept of 'prove' is for debaters who don't know what they're doing.
If you could find it within yourself to try and define that word 'prove' -- as I've asked you to do more than once -- you might come to see what I'm talking about.
If you are ready to debate this, then please do so. Offer your view, and back it up. There is no need to bring Michael "or any of my other heros" here. Especially when that would be pointless. If you want to debate my "silly" claim, please do so.
As for the claim, I want you to back it up. Why do you believe that the Gospel writers intended to write fiction? Why do you believe that the Gospel writers did not intend to write non-fiction? Just back up your claim. That is all I'm asking.
And really, you should have known what I was asking you to prove. You simply stating you believe something is all the proof I need in order to assume you believe it. That is logical. It is also logical to assume that I was talking about your belief, and why you believe it is true.
You don't need to play silly little word games here. Because really, all that they show is that you are not willing to deal with the actual matter, but would rather avoid it. So please, just address the question. Why do you believe that the Gospels writers intended to write fiction, and can you provide any evidence?
As for me seeing it as only black and white, that is another attack. You are trying to dismiss me by trying to make my view point seem ridiculous. There should be no room for that in a debate.
It is fine you believe something else. However, if you want to enter into a debate (we are in a debate forum), one should be ready to debate the ideas that they present.
As for defining the word prove. As with the last time you asked, I am willing to substitute the idea of prove, and instead, would just like you to provide evidence of your position. Just provide evidence supporting your argument. That is all I mean by prove.
Anyone who believes in 'burden of proof' is confused about the nature of serious debate.
Anyone who constantly tries to saddle his opponent with this "burden of proof" cannot be taken as a serious debater. Not by me, anyway.
Let me know if you'd like to define "prove" for me or talk about burden of proof. We'd have to do that before I'd consider continuing to discuss the historical Jesus with you.
Why not just actually address the issues at hand, instead of trying to make this into something it is not? I have addressed the idea of burden of proof, and I have even quoted an expert on the subject. I have also told you what I mean by prove. So please, just carry on with the actual arguments, and stop trying to derail this thread into something that it is not.
