I did not at any time say that anyone was in a snit. That's not a term i ever use, although perhaps Frank is fond of using such a term to make baseless accusations in order to attempt to bring his interlocutor into disreptue, rather than to actually address the challenge to his thesis.
This is the post which i made, and about which Frank is now making up quite a few lies:
Quote:While it is certainly a commonplace that the putative Jesus said to love one's enemies and do good to those who harm you, and leaving aside that we don't even have a reliable basis for asserting that he ever existed--it's more than a little silly to harp on what he did not say. The "scriptures" on which christianity is based are based on versions no earlier than the first half of the fourth century--as much as 300 years after the putative Jesus is thoguht to have lived and died. Given the number of contradictions in those texts, and the historical and geographic absurdities which appear in them, they can hardly be taken for reliable reports of what he did or did not say, if he ever existed. A lot of editing and interpolation can take place in three centuries. It is dicey enough to discuss what he is said to have said, it is the height of absurdity to focus on what one claims he did not say.
Now i didn't say anyone in particular is silly--just that harping on what the putative Jesus is alleged
not to have said is silly. To this Frank responded with a sneering insult, and that's all he's dealt in since then. He has signally failed to sustain his thesis, or to support the claim in his signature line. That's because he lacks the skills, in my estimation, and so he deals in insults. If he insults me, he'll get it right back. If he cannot handle being told that an idea of his is silly, he's a delicate flower indeed.
