Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:01 pm
Neil
I get it, now, but I didn't at the time I answered your question.
You are seriously teaching that when somebody asks a question of fact on an open forum, it isn't "normal" for those who know a factual answer to contribute it to the forum community? If so, then that's absurd. Exchange of information is as "normal" as exchange of views.The normal process in conversation is for people to exchange views, ...
Yes, I have already stated that I now realize that you probably intended your question to be rhetorical. You weren't interested in the information you ostensibly sought. It was apparently a "word game" on your part, to use your own phrase, in hopes of making a "point."that it did not address the point at all,
I get it, now, but I didn't at the time I answered your question.
The force of the argument behind the heuristic is entirely parallel to the rationale for the exception. The chief limitation of the heuristic and of the rationale are also similar. The exception and its rationale constitute a responsive answer to your question as you posed it.that far more than mere embarrassment was involved in the example you gave,
Indeed. You hadn't offered a proposition for me to rebut. You had asked a question, and I answered it. If you had stated your "point," rather than pretended to seek information related to it, then who's to say whether I would have responded? If you had and I had, then that would have been rebuttal. Anwering a question of fact correctly isn't rebuttal.and that your reply completely failed to rebut anything