I find your use of the word "worthy" here to be problematic. Not for you to judge.

Maybe some people are not ready for parenthood? Built for parenthood? Prepared? Dedicated? Equipped?

Which is largely attributable to abysmal adoption policies and laws.

Thats cuz childLESS couples are people who want kids but cant have them. Got nothing to do with childFREE.

It depends what you mean. Secular people are often comfortable with love as a sentimental feeling. Love based on truth that requires real sacrifice is more counter-cultural. Catholics do talk about that but you might not recognize it. For example, the fact that artifical contraceptives are anti-love is talking about love. You just are not used to love being discussed in that way.

Sure, we have a deeper sense of what is possible when we really learn to love. Catholicism should sound foolish to non-Catholics. Beautiful but crazy.

Lastly the general statement that Gentile Christians "persecute Jews right up to this day" isn't even wrong. I ignored it the first time. It has nothing to do with the conversation. If you don't want to have a conversation just say so, no need to insult me.

This discussion is going nowhere, so I may or may not comment further at a later time. Let me just clarify that I am not accusing you or anyone else personally of anti-Semitism, but I hope you do not deny the sad history of anti-Semitism in both Catholic and Protestant Christianity, or claim it is entirely a thing of the past:

Pope says sorry for sins of church

Sweeping apology for attacks on Jews, women and minorities defies theologians' warningsSaving one of his most audacious initiatives for the twilight of his papacy, John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.

From the altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome he led Catholicism into unchartered territory by seeking forgiveness for sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples.

Fighting through trembles and slurrings caused by Parkinson's disease, the Pope electrified ranks of cardinals and bishops by pleading for a future that would not repeat the mistakes. "Never again," he said.

Centuries of hate and rivalry could not recur in the third millennium. "We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions."

I'm not sure you answered my first question so I'll rehash.

Here is the argument you said Randy is implying you reject:

his implicit argument, which is that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus garnered him a large following at the time, and consequently we should likewise believe in those miraculous events. But that is not only a very weak argument, it goes against the story of Christianity for the past 2000 years.

Now you've said something distinctly different:

It seems to me that you are contradicting the Christian story here, arguing against the fact that the Jews—whatever they may have done during the life of Jesus—did not follow him in any significant numbers after his death.

Additionally:

So I don't buy the argument that the earliest followers of Jesus, in the earliest days of the Jesus movement, are so impressive that we should adopt their faith.

If you're making the second argument about Jews post resurrection why even bring up the multitudes miracle? According to the NT Jesus performed miracles that led to large crowds (>4k) that followed Jesus him to Bethsaida where He performed healings and the multitudes miracle. Randy never mentioned this, but you did, maybe because it happened in Galilee. When you brought it up you then claimed a minuscule number of them became his followers as evidenced by Sim and against Randy's implicit argument.

None of that follows the original argument. Jesus never asked them to follow him, they just did. Jesus never preached to them he was the Messiah, in fact, after he told his disciples in private and commanded them to tell no one (Mark 8:30) And so why do you conclude the crowds were (un)impressed and so we should (not) adopt their faith? They were impressed but were not asked to adopt any faith. They were sent them away and Christ left on a boat yet some of them followed Jesus to Jerusalem where he was crucified.

Contrary to your claim you don't have the foggiest idea how many of them were Jews at the time of the miracles of the multitudes and how many of them became Jew-Christians in Jerusalem where the Jew Christians congregated after the resurrection. You're speculating based on Sims numbers. Sims entirely dismisses all Lucian numbers in Acts who claims tens of thousands of Jew converts in Jerusalem (population 120k). So, no I don't think Randy is making any claims contrary to the tradition.

Second, I think it is spurious to argue or imply that a lack of conversion is a testimony unto itself about the "impressiveness" of Christ or His miracles to the Jews. That's a skeptic's reason for the rejection of the cornerstone.

Lastly the general statement that Gentile Christians "persecute Jews right up to this day" isn't even wrong. It's pure "crystal-duh". I ignored it the first time; if you don't want to have a conversation just say so, no need to poke me.

Yes, thanks.