Question for Michael wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:46 AM:
" Would you restate what you mean by your use of the term "evidencers"? And, given the recent discussion and your responses, or lack thereof, would you put yourself in the category of the "evidencers"? "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:37 PM:
" Huh? If the evidence isn't indisputable, then dispute it with your own evidence. Show us how the evidence presented doesn't "add up". We will be waiting...(for a loooong time, I imagine) "
Michael Welch: Atheists!... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:45 PM:
" I never think of myself as an 'atheist' because I discount ALL 'dogma' and atheists often present a doctrinaire view too. Hitler was a baptized Catholic but his grandfather might well have been a Jew -- so talk about 'self-hating' Jews!!!! Stalin actually had a 'seminary education' but maybe that's what made him an atheist! Life itself has happened and it has probably happened (to what extent one can't say) somewhere else in this vast universe (see recent news) but re: Gore Vidal's 'Cyrus Spitama' in his fine novel 'Creation' folks always want to know 'origins.' The Hindus and Buddhists of course are usually the exception -- they don't care! Hitler slaughtered for 'racial purity' not atheism and Unca Joe for HIS power not for atheism but lots of killing has been 'in the name of Christ' so Christians needn't be smug...
"
Michael Welch: Earth Is 6000 Years Old?! Nope!... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:00 PM:
" The 'evidence' can't be 'indisputable' that the earth is only 6000 years old; the scientific community would certainly be communicating that if it were as sure as say 'e = mc2.' Obviously Christian fundamentalists believe this but 'the most educated' in these scientific fields DON'T. (I note that when the 'most educated people believe' argument is perceived to work FOR the evidencers they invoke it but now -- hmmm?) And I repeat: the Bible is not an actual account of human origins; if you read the first chapters of 'Genesis' you have indeed TWO accounts of human creation and they read beautifully but as obvious mythology. Yeah read it!... "
Anonymous wrote on Apr 25, 2007 1:33 PM:
" No one can "prove" the origins of the earth. No one was there. All we have is observable science to give us "clues". We all have the same evidence(see 11:42, 4:24, and 4:28 posts on 4/18). This evidence is indisputable. It puts the earth at roughly 6,000 years, which is roughly where the Bible puts it. It should put to rest any discussion of evolution and billions of years, unless you have an agenda. Given the fact the Bible can be trusted in this area, as well as the historical evidence for the Resurrection discussed previously, I stand on pretty solid ground when I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ. I wish the same for all of you, and wish you all good luck. "
Serious question wrote on Apr 25, 2007 1:20 PM:
" The other night, Stephen Dawkins was on Bill O'Reilly. In the interview, Dawkins admitted atheists have no explanation for the origins of life. He also acknowledged that most brutal killers of the past century have been atheists. What do those posting on this board make of the fact that although atheists are minority in this country, they make up the largest percentage of brutal killers? Just thought it was interesting. Thoughts? "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 25, 2007 1:11 PM:
" It doesn't matter what the vast majority "say" or "accept". This goes for a belief in creation or evolution. Because no one was there at the beginning, you must go where the evidence leads. As pointed out below, the numbers JUST DON'T ADD UP to evolution. On the other hand, the numbers DO support the Bible's view of the age of the earth. You have yet to refute those numbers. Bottom line:I really don't care what the majority says. I go by where the evidence leads, and what the numbers say. "
Michael Welch: "You Know That They Are Christian By Their Love"?... wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:22 PM:
" With Muslims and Jews I believe the MOST important aspect of having a religion is NOT what you 'believe' per se but what you DO. ALL religions prescribe a set of moral behavior as well as a plethora of ritual that provides a group identity. In the contemporary world when ties of family, friends and community can be so fluid, belief in religious absolutes can be extremely comforting -- but it can also be judgmentally dangerous as when militant Muslims propose attacking any 'westernization' or when fundamentalist Christians attempt to impose their religious beliefs on ALL society. Jesus recognized conflict sure but he also spoke for tolerance and love of 'the other' -- the USA these days NEEDS more understanding and less judgment... "
Michael Welch: None Of You Even Mention The Bible Now!... wrote on Apr 25, 2007 11:40 AM:
" We are back to 'faith'; scientists do NOT believe in what is called 'creationism' but those who posit it do -- based upon their religious beliefs. Stay with me -- I have said 'from the beginning' that this is primarily a matter of faith, in the supernatural sure, and to insist that this is a scientific argument is bogus. Evolution IS INDEED accepted by that 'VAST MAJORITY' okay? Scientists are NOT talking about an earth only 6000 years old. But you evidencers say the Bible is actual history; I say it is a compendium of myth and prescribed ritual and NOT to be read as a history book OR as a scientific text. I'll keep on saying that and I note that NOT ONE of the 'evidencers' even mentions the Bible now!... "
Anonymous wrote on Apr 24, 2007 4:27 PM:
" Michael-pay close attention......stay with me here.....the evidence used in the posts on 4/18 at 4:24 and 4:28 are using the numbers provided by the "VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE EDUCATED IN THOSE SCIENCES". Do you get it? The posts use the numbers provided by the people whom you refer to as the "real scientists", and mathematically show how they are wrong. This isn't subjective, Michael. These are objective facts. Not to mention eaters post on the same day at 11:42am where he went right to the source-Darwin himself. Sorry, Michael, you couldn't ask for more damning(couldn't resist) evidence against evolution and billions of years. Does this "prove" creation? No, but it is another piece of the puzzle on top of all the other evidence and sources discussed.... "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 24, 2007 4:09 PM:
" I believe these concerns of yours have already been addressed in previous posts. "
Michael Welch: (Don't) Read The Book! See The Movie!... wrote on Apr 24, 2007 12:17 PM:
" All religions adapt to changing times or they become irrelevant; consequently the biblical injunctions about dietary laws or sabbath day observance, even the commands of Jesus to serve others ALWAYS before yourself OR your family and friends ('If you only love those who love you what virtue lies in that?!') are (necessarily) modified so that daily life can continue -- though Jesus CLEARLY indicated the apocalypse would occur in the lifetimes of that FIRST Christian generation. The movies are in fact a VERY APT adaptation to modernity and even most Christians barely ever read the Bible -- but they see the movie(s)!... "
Michael Welch: Yeah So Much For "Ignoring" Me... wrote on Apr 24, 2007 12:02 PM:
" I hardly need be 'instructed' by 'Mr' Gimme My Thirty Pieces of Silver. But note: the 'evidencers' NEVER discuss actual biblical 'events' or texts but posit bogus 'science' which they KNOW the vast number of those 'educated' in these sciences DO NOT ACCEPT. And moreover the evidencers offer absolutely NO EVIDENCE that is specific to the biblical accounts; they just assume that if one accepts their assertions the only other possibility is the Bible. I am saying that reading the Bible as actual history ('literally' rather than mythologically and metaphorically) is inaccurate. The Bible's not real science and it's not real history -- it's religion... "
Anonymous wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:15 PM:
" Re the 2:04pm post-!? You are being deliberately misleading with your choice of words. There is real, verifiable evidence that can lead one to believe that something supernatural occured. This is not the same as "supernatural evidence". Capice? "
To:2:02pm wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:59 PM:
" That doesn't matter. If the evidence makes sense and you can't refute it, and the numbers evolutionists use don't add up while the numbers in the Bible do(as outlined in the posts mentioned) it really doesn't matter whether AIG, "real" scientists, the average layperson, a 5 year old, a child prodigy, Ken Ham, Gary Habermas, Anthony Flew, or whoever is stating the numbers. The fact is, anyone can look at the numbers objectively and add them up. If I am wrong, how come no "real" scientists have refuted the evidence offered? Tell me why the numbers in the posts on 4/24 are wrong or where the poster is wrong in their math. I(and the poster, I am sure) will be waiting.... "
Mr. Kennedy wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:47 PM:
" Re Michael Welch comments. No, they probably won't be ignored in the future(unfortunately, most people don't subscribe to the philosophy "If you can't educate them ignore them"). Re the literal age of the earth: Didn't someone address this in the 4/18 4:24pm and 4:28pm posts alluded to earlier?(complete with numbers and using evolutions own theories)? Funny how Michael keeps ignoring this. What does "anti-literalism" even mean? You don't believe in absolute truth? There are no objective facts? What difference does it make if the movie version is more pleasing than the real life version? That is irrelevant. You have yet to deal with the facts and evidence presented after begging so long for them. "
oxymorons.. wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:04 PM:
" I find the term, "supernatural evidence" to be extremely funny.. "
Re: Not true Michael, Eater wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:02 PM:
" All the "evidence" you're giving seems to be straight from answersingenesis.org, which doesn't cite ANY scientists - only your typical extremist religious rhetoric. The problem with all of ID articles that acutally have been accepted (which are few)and published in peer-reviewed journals only state the problems with evolution - not why intelligent design is correct. So you can quote AIG.org all you want - but I would hardly call that a credible source that one could cite when writing a paper for a biology class. "
Michael Welch: Movies Are Better Than (Most) Churches?... wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:47 PM:
" I watched again the great movie director George Stevens' 1965 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' the other day -- it's a fascinating 'medieval mystery play' approach to the Jesus story and filmed on the Arizona-Utah border near Glen canyon by the way. What intrigues me always is the example of Jesus in the movies -- his pacifism, his tolerance, his generosity of character -- and it does not matter if the story is 'altered' somewhat for the screen or eliminates the harsher sayings in the gospels because this way Jesus is 'universalized' and that great example is emphasized. The 'movie religion' so to speak is indeed so often the 'best' version!... "
Michael Welch: I Write Contra "Literalism" And For Tolerance... wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:45 AM:
" I really doubt if my comments will be ignored in the future because they're hardly ignored now. What puzzles me though is that not one of the 'evidencers' ever cites the Bible or explains the purported 'history' in the Bible. And are the 'evidencers' actually contending the earth is only 6000 years old for example? 'MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE' (as YOU SAY SO OFTEN!) in geology and science -- in fact the OVERWHELMING number of them -- certainly DON'T believe that! Also any real reading of my remarks shows clearly that I contend the Bible is a compendium of religious ritual and mythological 'history' of the religionists and that I am NOT 'anti-Christian' but anti-literalist... "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:59 AM:
" Everyone may as well just ignore Michaels comments. You may not realize that everytime there is an article of a Christian nature, he always shows up posting his anti-Christian rhetoric. It seems he will never get his head wrapped around the concept that although you can't scientifically prove a supernatural occurence, one can certainly examine the evidence for and against a supernatural occurence and reasonably come to the conclusion that it did take place, even though it can't be scientifically proven. "
Not true, Michael wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:34 AM:
" See 4/18 posts at 4:24 and 4:28pm for some evidence provided by 1 of the posters. Also see eaters 11:42 am post on that same day. Also, sources have been listed previously which go into more detail of the evidence. You have addressed none of these. You lose the debate. Good luck to you. "
Michael Welch: Again I Repeat: Science Is NOT Magic... wrote on Apr 21, 2007 11:20 AM:
" What 'real evidence'? I don't think any of us are offering especially 'scientific' evidence in any detailed way. I do know that the overwhelming view of the scientific community -- 'most educated people' in those fields -- is that evolution is factual and observable. I do not believe that the Bible is a book of science; science is NOT about the supernatural but must concern observable NATURAL phenomena; the supernatural belongs to the human psyche. Of course 'we' all know each other's preferences by now; I do not expect you to abandon your faith in the LITERAL historicity of the Bible but I hardly see 'evidence' on YOUR part for ANY part of 'Genesis.' YOU've assiduously avoided addressing ITS specifics... "
Well,darn it all, Michael... wrote on Apr 20, 2007 3:58 PM:
" I wish you would have said from the get-go that you would not consider the supernatural, and that no amount of evidence could cause you to consider occurences of a supernatural nature. This is known as an anti-supernatural bias, and we could have all saved a lot of time........oh well. "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 20, 2007 3:10 PM:
" Agreed. Science can't prove the supernatural, nor can it disprove it. By its very definition, science is only concerned with natural occurences that are subject to the scientific method. Therfore, one should never say such ridiculous things like there is a conflict between faith and science. As a side note, I notice that now that someone stepped up and offered some real evidence using math and science, you have become particularly silent on the evidence, and are retreating into your own opinion. "
Michael Welch: Prove A Negative Is The Argument Now... wrote on Apr 20, 2007 1:18 PM:
" One can see that the argument on the part of the literalists is resting on whether proponents of evolution can 'prove a negative,' i. e. prove the Bible's version is NOT history. It's certainly difficult to present 'evidence' that an event in antiquity DID NOT happen and especially a supernatural one! Again I invite folks to indeed READ YOUR BIBLE and think about what you're being told -- whether this is 'history' or 'mythology.' It is a religious book, not a compendium of science, history and biology; it is obviously an important book but should be read on its own terms, not as a scientific explanation for 'everything'... "
Michael Welch: "Magic" Is Not "Science"... wrote on Apr 20, 2007 11:47 AM:
" The 'straws' seem very much on the 'other' side; of course evolution is more 'plausible' since it does not depend upon 'supernatural' occurrence. Also what is 'implausible' (a 9-11 attack? 300 Spartans fighting to hold the pass at Thermopylae?) depends on how one views an historical situation. Is it 'supernatural' that Alexander conquered from Greece to India? (HE thought so but do we?) Everything that is more or less happened say 6000 years ago and little has changed since? The Bible is a collection of literal events? Science does NOT verify 'magic'; only you can, in your mind... "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 19, 2007 2:55 PM:
" Come on, Michael. You are grasping at straws. Many implausible things occured throughout history, individually and otherwise. The question isn't whether it is plausible or not. The question is, does the evidence support it. If you scroll through this board, the obvious answer is yes. "
To:11:45am wrote on Apr 19, 2007 1:07 PM:
" Opinions without facts are worthless. Everyone was whining and complaining about only touching on the evidence, and only citing sources. Now, when people took the time in the last several days to use math and science to debunk the myth of evolution and millions of years, all we are left with is your worthless opinion. You have a right to it, but there is nothing in observational science that contradicts the Bible. Faith, reason, math, and science all go very well together, don't you think? And I know that is VERY infuriating to some. "
Michael Welch: Is The Bible REALLY The MOST "Plausible"?... wrote on Apr 19, 2007 11:45 AM:
" I think it is really more 'rational' to assume the variety of the earth and the life upon it as a lengthy process rather than an 'instant' one. Science posits millions+ of years of evolutionary development and change, of failures and catastrophes, of meteor explosions and drastic climate alterations -- this seems more 'logical' than say 'God' punishing New Orleans with 'Katrina.' Of course 'creationist' views can allow an extra-terrestial intelligence NOT 'supernatural' -- the earth as an 'experiment' or 'amusement' of a more highly developed planetary civilization? The immediate 'reach' for 'Genesis' is better called 'the leap of faith'... "
Continued from previous post wrote on Apr 18, 2007 4:28 PM:
" So, if evolutionary geology is correct, the continents should have long ago been worn down to sea level. Also, evolutionary biologists tell us that the first modern woman lived about 200,000 years ago. At an average of 3 children per family(the current world average is 4),the worlds population should have reached 3.5 billion in 4,000 years. We reached that figure only within recent centuries. Granted, wars and disease accounted for more losses in the past, but that still does not explain this huge error. The truth is, the facts simply don't add up to evolution. But, they do support the Bibles view of history. "
So, what is the age of the earth... wrote on Apr 18, 2007 4:24 PM:
" Was anyone there?(well, besides God). On one hand, we have observational science which,when it comes to our origins, is a lot of conjecture and guessing. On the other hand, we have a book(the Bible)that many claim to be divinely inspired. Are the 2 compatible? Lets take a look:(this may take more than 1 post). Evolutionary geology states that processes such as erosion and mountain building have always taken place at the same rate as today. So, if we take the volume of the worlds continents and divide it by the known rate of erosion, it should only take 14 million years to erode the continents down to sea level. We are also told that the last mountain building activity took place about 65 million years ago. "
To: Eater wrote on Apr 18, 2007 1:53 PM:
" You say many scientists are STILL proponents of evolution - as if many of them decided to switch to intelligent design - which is false. You're right, in that the origin of life is still a mystery - but that hardly makes evolution invalid. Even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (aliens brought the first living cells, etc.), evidence supported by micro & macroevolutionary studies would support any evolutionary activity thereafter. Darwin had some great theories, some that have since been disproved, and some that still hold. But that's what's great about scientists - if they were intellectually dishonest, they wouldn't acknowledge when research proves contrary to their initial findings. "
Michael Welch: Myth And History Shouldn't Be The Same... wrote on Apr 18, 2007 1:41 PM:
" I do think that at last we are having a REAL discussion and ('baruch hashem'!) eschewing the coy mockery of see-my-evidence-no-you-don't! game. Good! The contention that for example an 'ark' full of animals two-by-two that repopulates the world is 'possible' just because ships exist and so do animals and one can put animals on ships is also 'magical' thinking -- a child's version of a reality in which fairy stories are, even MUST be, 'true' or one's 'worldview' indeed 'collapses.' Noah COULD be a 'story' of fidelity and faith -- not literal 'history' but an 'example.' It does 'read better' that way!... "
Michael Welch: "Magic" Vs "Reality"... wrote on Apr 18, 2007 12:12 PM:
" If one posits that 'creation' occurred oh in 4004 BCE (the 'traditonal' biblical date) and that there was/is no 'evolution' then that does seem to be 'magical' thinking. Under some very necessary conditions the reality of our existence is that 'life' as we know it happened and continues; that can be truly the 'nature of things' and one can perceive THIS reality as 'God' if you wish. But is this 'God' the one of the Jewish scriptures and ONLY He? Or could this 'God' be understood as a 'life force,' an 'energy' of sorts, represented in the mythology of ALL religions? Evolution is seen as valid by almost ALL scientists; it is 'dishonest' to charge ALL with 'insincerity'... "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:42 AM:
" Science by definition deals with the natural. Anything supernatural is discounted by science. Rightfully so. Hence, science alone will never fully explain our origins. Rather than pit my sources against yours, I will go right to the source himself-Darwin. Darwin himself, in the 14th chapter of "The Origin of the Species" pointed out that his whole arguement began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature of evolution of which a thoroughly comprehensive "theory" of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. Yes, many scientists are still proponents of evolution. But, I think they are being intellectually dishonest. "
Re: to 4:44 pm and Eater wrote on Apr 18, 2007 9:46 AM:
" Hmm, looks like we do need to talk. Last time I heard, evolution was already an established scientific theory (above a hypothesis, but below a law), and has been for 100+ years..the biology class I took last year certainly referred to it as a scientific theory. It also explains why the magazine I subscribe to, "Scientific American" has many articles supporting evolution. Those anti-evolutionist books you're reading must be from peer-reviewed biological journals, right? To Eater: It's flawed logic to assume that just because evolution is "the best we can come up with" - that creationism must be true. That's like saying, "if it's a bird, it has wings - it has wings, so it must be a bird... "
To:4:44pm wrote on Apr 18, 2007 9:00 AM:
" Excuse me? Speak for yourself. There is nothing in observational science that conflicts with creationism. On the other hand, whoever titled their post "to eater", you believe in evolution as SCIENCE?! We need to talk! "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 18, 2007 8:37 AM:
" I don't understand what you are saying. I see no conflict between science and faith either. There can be no conflict, because by definition science cannot explain the supernatural. Evolution is the BEST natural explanation science can come up with for our origins. If you want to talk pseudo-science-evolution would be it. It hardly even qualifies as a theory. There have literally been books written about the problems with evolution. My point being, if that is the best explanation science can come up with for our origins, that in and of itself is a pretty strong arguement for creationism. I acknowledge creationism isn't science either. Science in and of itself simply can't explain our origins. Bottom line: I still don't understand:What DO Catholics believe? "
What RE: do you mean all Christians do not believe Creationism wrote on Apr 17, 2007 4:44 PM:
" Catholics don't. Catholics don't see a conflict between science and faith. "
To Eater wrote on Apr 17, 2007 4:07 PM:
" Creationism is what I refer to as "pseudo-science", because so many people insist on calling it a science. I believe in evolution as a science and I believe in Christianity as a faith. Theologian Hans Kung puts it rather nicely in his book, The Beginning of All Things. "
Reason vs. Faith wrote on Apr 17, 2007 3:13 PM:
" Again, you are twisting words. The poster did not state they are the same. The poster stated they are not mutually exclusive. "
To:Michael wrote on Apr 17, 2007 3:11 PM:
" No one said it "confirms" it. Only that there is nothing in observational science that contradicts the Biblical account of history. If there was, we would not be having this discussion. We all have the same evidence. Your worldview determines how you interpret that evidence. "
Michael Welch: "Faith" Needs "Metaphor": That's "Reasonable"!... wrote on Apr 17, 2007 11:56 AM:
" 'Reason' and 'faith' are not of course the same; one must always note the difference. The problem with fundamentalism in religions (in ALL religions) is that there is too little room for reason and -- more to their detriment -- for metaphor. OBVIOUSLY evolutionists for instance 'believe' there IS 'evidence' for great periodic upheavals of moving tectonic plates, molten explosions, glaciation and subsequent melting (vast FLOODing the inevitable result) BUT that hardly confirms a ship full of animals 'two-by-two' that repopulate a formerly totally immersed earth. THAT is NOT 'reasonable'... "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 17, 2007 11:16 AM:
" What do you mean all Christians do not believe in Creationism? What do you think they do believe?!
"
To:btw wrote on Apr 17, 2007 11:08 AM:
" While you're there, why not engage Ken Ham or one of the staff in a discussion regarding Genesis, young earth/old earth? You may learn something. If you are not interested in the earths history-that is fine-but there is no need to mock people who are. "
btw.. wrote on Apr 17, 2007 10:14 AM:
" All Christians do not believe in creationism and all evolutionists are not necessarily Athiests. And I do look forward to going to Ken Ham's "cretards' smithsonian" where dinosaurs roam the earth with humans...oohh it's like an adult DisneyWorld...a museum with no artifacts... "
To:one-sided bias wrote on Apr 16, 2007 4:51 PM:
" "fringe" isn't necessarily bad. McDowell and Strobel were once non-believers(hence non-apologetics) themselves, so they know the drill. As mentioned previously, Gary Habermas has successfully debated many atheists(including Anthony Flew),so your arguememt of unfamiliarity with the other side really holds no water. And, speaking of young earth beliefs, Ken Ham has successfully debated and answered proponents of evolution. If Noahs flood actually happened,you would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Which is exactly what you do find. As a previous poster said-we all have the same evidence-your worldview determines your interpretation of the evidence. Math and science support a young earth-so America is actually ahead of the game. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 16, 2007 3:38 PM:
" Fair enough. My point from the beginning was that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. "
one-sided bias wrote on Apr 16, 2007 3:33 PM:
" McDowell and Strobel are the last people I'd be going to for evidence on anything - it must be just a coincidence that they never interviewed any non-apologetics for any of their books. Their books are not scientific - they're more in the realm of theology and philosophy. Every scientist Strobel interviewed was on the fringe in the scientific world, yet he takes their word as being in the majority's views. Anyway..so sad...our country...it's really too bad 40% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. No wonder we lag behind in education in the maths and sciences. "
Michael Welch: Coming Soon!... wrote on Apr 16, 2007 1:37 PM:
" Of course there is 'evidence' in the sense of what might be presented say in any 'court'; the question first is What is it? and to that the 'evidencers' have made the answer seem well 'Not very much' simply by their obvious reluctance to be forthcoming. (The 'pay me first' incident is ugly and a great mistake in the name of mockery.) I WILL read the McDowell book (now in the mails) and I WILL critique it as well as I can: if it makes salient points I shall mark them as I shall say where it may not be so convincing. Different 'juries' offer different 'verdicts' and in religious matters 'faith' IS paramount but sure we shall see... "
4/13 8:46am post ?? wrote on Apr 16, 2007 9:16 AM:
" Still waiting for answers........ "
Mr Money In The Bank wrote on Apr 16, 2007 8:50 AM:
" Yeah, you must be right. Most educated people in this country must be wrong. All because no one gave into your petulance and laid the evidence out here...great deductive reasoning on your part. "
To:5:09pm wrote on Apr 16, 2007 8:42 AM:
" That was just speculation on my part-they may very well know what the evidence is-they may just not have the time or inclination to lay it out for someone who has already said they are familiar with it, and who just wishes to argue(not debate). Mr. Kennedy made a generous offer to lay out the evidence to no response. Your point is also invalid because they did cite sources. If they said "there is evidence,but I don't know what it is, and I don't have any extra-Biblical sources", you would have a valid point. But, alas, that is not the case. "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" is just that-evidence. If there was no evidence, there would be no book. Let me check...lets see...yep, the book is still here. Case closed-evidence does exist. "
To: 11:17am wrote on Apr 15, 2007 5:09 PM:
" Then again, maybe people are not stating the "evidence" because they won't admit that there is none. They "don't remember the details"? They claim that there is compelling evidence of Jesus' divinity in these books, but they can't remember the details? That is laughable! The most important question in the history of mankind, and they can't remember the details of the answer? LOL.... "
To:4/13 7:09pm wrote on Apr 15, 2007 11:17 AM:
" See 4/13 8:46am post. Enough stalling from you also. Also, Michael Welch does have a point. C.S. Lewis may be a better representative of Christianity than others. As may McDowell and Strobel. So, I would suggest checking out their works for the answers you desire. Oh, wait, you said before you did. So, you have the same evidence as everyone else. Your worldview determines how you interpret the evidence. As far as "stalling", you know how when someone says something so eloquently, you respond with "yeah-what he said"-well, this is kind of the same thing...in other words, maybe people here feel they can't do the works justice, or maybe they don't remember the details but it made sense at the time. No worries, though. It is what it is. "
Michael Welch: "Time Is Money" As Judas Also Observed?... wrote on Apr 14, 2007 11:23 AM:
" Yes the startling aspect to all this 'stalling' is the absence of any of Lewis' 'joy'; do these 'believers' think C. S. would shrink from debate and discussion? Would he create such a gray pinched parsimoniousness for HIS Christianity? Would he haughtily demand money like some medieval caricature of Judas, belt pulled down to his hips by bags of shekels? I begin to wonder: are you REALLY 'Christians'? Is this an elaborate 'gag'? A joke? You all seem so so -- diminished while all the passion and exuberance is on the 'other' side... "
Enough Stalling. Just Cite The Evidence. wrote on Apr 13, 2007 7:09 PM:
" Mr. Kennedy (and others, I assume) keep referring to this unspoken "evidence" as well as certain men who have written commentaries on it. Again and again, they stall, change the subject, and fill this thread with irrelevant banter, and they still do not cite the evidence. I will ask again: What is the evidence? Is it an ancient tomb? A piece of Jesus' cross? A newly-found and verified testimony from Jesus himself? Is it the Holy Grail? Have the original authors of the gospels been identified? What is it?? "
To:Michael wrote on Apr 13, 2007 1:19 PM:
" What a coincidence-I actually responed to you on the other site. I may have to check that out also-I am only familiar with his "Evidence That Demands A verdict". Anyway, Once you post your comments I will need to decide whose analysis and interpretation I find more credible:C.S Lewis, Gary Habermas, McDowell,Strobel, most educated people in this country OR that of Michael Welch. Good luck to you. "
Michael Welch: Stay Tuned! Coming On This Station -- Soon!... wrote on Apr 13, 2007 1:04 PM:
" I posted on the 'Who is Jesus?' story in the 'local news' section that I had just purchased the Josh McDowell study 'Evidence For Christianity' from Amazon.com at a VERY good price and I shall (probably not in 'time' for this particular blog site) read it as soon as I get it and discuss it in another appropriate context, i. e. in yet another repetition of 'Read-Won't Discuss-Farewell!' on the part of the folks I call 'evidencers.' So -- as Ronnie the Ray-gun used to say: 'Stay tuned!'... "
To:11:20am wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:58 PM:
" Disciples, believers, most educated people in this country, etc...yes,they have all said so. "
Meanwhile back at the ranch.... wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:56 PM:
" The rest of us are still awaiting the answers to the questions posed in the 8:46am post(and we probably will be waiting for quite some time.....) "
Michael Welch: Farewell Cruel (Unbelieving) World!... wrote on Apr 13, 2007 11:20 AM:
" Now of course we reach the 'inevitable' leave-taking -- boo hoo! farewell! -- 'til next time! And there WILL be a 'next time' have (in this case!) NO DOUBT for the 'evidencers' will repeat the same litany over and over: read the books WE agree with but never never NEVER DARE ask US to discuss said books in the post after post we WILL present DEMANDING you read these books BEFORE we say anything but hints and snippets. Well essentially the 'proof' is this: Christianity exists, 'ipso facto' it's true because disciples and believers have said so for two millennia. That's the 'evidence'... "
To:To: 8:39am wrote on Apr 13, 2007 10:34 AM:
" Okay, I think I understand now. Evidence that leads to a conclusion you agree with is "evidence", while evidence that leads to a different conclusion is "opinion". Got it. Thanks for clarifying. "
Mr. Kennedy wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:25 AM:
" My offer is still open-I may have to up my fee now that someone who is asking us to take the time to lay out the evidence presented by the books has confessed that he is actually familiar with the books. So, presenting the evidence here would be an exercise in futility. Sorry, but I agree with another poster:I give more weight to these authors examination and analysis of the evidence, as well as the respected C.S. Lewis than I do to you 2 clowns. On that note, unless someone takes me up on my offer, I will be taking my leave. "
To:5:38pm wrote on Apr 13, 2007 8:46 AM:
" 1)Mr. Kennedy made an offer to lay out the evidence to no response from you. 2)Planet Stasiak asked if you consider yourself a master debater, to which you didn't respond.3)Why ask for the evidence they presented if you are familiar with their works? I believe you are lying and are not familiar. One would not call their book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" if their was no evidence. They would call it "Opinions That Demand A Verdict". Bottom line:It is you who are avoiding the inconvenient questions. "
To: 8:39am wrote on Apr 12, 2007 5:38 PM:
" You won’t state the “evidence” that Strobel and McDowell found because there isn’t any evidence. Do you understand the difference between "evidence" and "opinion"? One consists of physical artifacts and verified eyewitness testimony, and the other does not. All you have to do is cite one physical artifact or verified eyewitness testimony, but you CAN'T do it. To be honest, I AM familiar with the works of Strobel and McDowell, and I know what is in them. It's nothing but personal opinions and interpretations, which is NOT evidence. "
To: Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 12, 2007 5:24 PM:
" In the posts of 4/7, 7:51pm and 4/9, 8:38am, all that was given as “evidence” was the names of Dr. Simon Greenleaf, Frank Morrison, Lord Darling, Lee Strobel, their opinions, and more arbitrary rhetoric. Not one reference to any physical artifact or verified first-person eyewitness testimony was given. As usual, all that is given is the redundant “It’s true because these men say it’s true”. Certain people here need to learn the difference between “evidence” and “opinion”. "
Michael Welch: Over And Over Again... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 3:35 PM:
" Actually some folks post over and over again (as I do) but they NEVER can give a synopsis of the reputed 'evidence'; they can only allude to it. I think it's THEY who are 'intellectually dishonest' because if one understands what he's read he ought to be able to tell you about it. What's 'A Farewell to Arms' about; give us a synopsis of the plot -- or what does Paul mean by 'through a glass darkly' in I Corinthians 13? Would one NEED to say well read the book or find a commentary? Obviously folks are interested enough to post but want to avoid REAL evaluation of the so-called 'evidence'... "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 12, 2007 3:29 PM:
" Well,really, anyone "could" be mistaken about anything at anytime. I just don't believe the evidence supports the idea that Christians are mistaken about the Bodily Resurrection of Christ or His Divinity. So there you have it. "
Michael Welch: From Ann Wroe's 1999 Study "Pontius Pilate"... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 12:12 PM:
" '"A-B-C-D-1-2-3/ Jesus died for you and me/ He died to make us really free!" Is that so? Pilate might ask. (He walks in the sand dunes; the wind and the grass snag at him.) Are you free now, jumping, shouting, saved, because I sentenced him? Did I do that for you?' [Imagine Pilate played -- seriously -- by Peter Sellers?...] "
Michael Welch: Okey Dokey... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 12:03 PM:
" You pays yer money an' you picks yer sources; I brought up a legitimate point (the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke re: the circumstances of Jesus' birth) but NO ONE would address it with ANY 'EVIDENCE.' (I understand why of course.) There is really nothing 'wrong' with 'believing' in a religion until EVERY aspect of that religion becomes ABSOLUTELY 'TRUE' while all others are ABSOLUTELY 'FALSE,' even 'evil.' Muslims also have 'evidence' via the long line of followers who -- well did they ALL believe in a 'lie'? If they were 'mistaken' why can't Christians say be 'mistaken'? Hmmm?... "
Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 12, 2007 8:48 AM:
" Some of the evidence that you request WAS touched upon on this board. See 4/7 7:51pm and 4/9 8:38am posts. You just seem to ignore the posts that touch upon the evidence. "Touching" upon the evidence is all that is feasable to do on this board. If you wish to dig deeper, you need to go right to the sources. But, don't act like you are being stonewalled and no one is giving you anything. That is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. "
Mr.Kennedy to 7:16pm wrote on Apr 12, 2007 8:39 AM:
" The obvious question that comes to mind is why beat your head against the wall by repeatedly asking and being denied? If you were here to debate rather than argue, and you were sincerely interested in the evidence, you would LOOK IT UP. Honestly, I don't have Strobels book but I am looking at McDowells book as we speak and I am not inclined to nor do I wish to take the time to provide the evidence either. I guess its that simple. I have no idea how this would be arranged even if you were so inclined due to the anonymity of the board, but if the logistics could be worked out, would you be willing to pay me a fee if I were to provide the evidence for you on this board? I don't mean to sound greedy, but time is money, and I am busy, busy, busy. "
To: Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:16 PM:
" I posted the 4:27 and 4:34 posts, and I am not being sarcastic at all, nor am I "having fun". I just want certain people to answer a simple question - what evidence of Jesus' divinity did Strobel and McDowell find? Certain people love to promote the two authors' books, but they never - and I mean NEVER - state the evidence that the authors found. They stall, change the subject, and make ad hominem arguments, but for some strange reason, they never state the evidence. Why is that? "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:27 PM:
" So, the long and short of it comes down to what I posted on another board. C.S. Lewis, Strobel, and McDowell(and many others) have a different view of the historical Jesus than you do. They were all unbelievers who became believers after taking an independent look at the evidence. I think I will trust their analysis and conclusions over yours. But thanks for your input and good luck to you. "
Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:46 PM:
" Re 12:30pm Who is backpedaling? When did anyone say they had any interest in a debate? People are stating what they believe and why. Some people cite outside authors as credible sources for the evidence they rely on for their beliefs. Nothing more,nothing less. However,there have been actual debates between atheists and Christians with judges, ballots, etc. Gary Habermas used to debate Anthony Flew off and on. Oh, by the way, Anthony Flew has since become a Theist due to the evidence presented. You seem very proud of your debating experience in high school and college. Would you consider yourself a master debater? "
To:12:30pm wrote on Apr 11, 2007 3:22 PM:
" Yawn... "
Michael Welch: 7 CE or 4 BCE?... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 1:42 PM:
" Neither was C. S. Lewis always a 'believer'; however the books you cite are not the results of 'searching' for that belief but they are written to shore it up -- which is perfectly fine for apologetics. Now of course the Bible and the Hebrew-Israelite-Jews are 'historic' in that they certainly came about within an historical context. What we do NOT know is whether the 'specifics' of biblical accounts are 'historic.' E. g.: there was no 'world-wide' census at the time of Jesus' birth; there was a Syrian 'census' but it happened about 7 CE while King Herod died in 4 BCE -- conflicting Luke with Matthew. See what I mean?... "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 11, 2007 12:51 PM:
" Actually, McDowell and Strobel were not always believers. Once they took an honest, unbiased look at the evidence they became believers. I think the reason people cite McDowell and Strobel more than MMLJ is because most critics are looking for extra-Biblical evidence. "
Michael Welch: Watch That Pronoun Form Buddy!... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 12:34 PM:
" I tried to 'block' that 11:33 post because I mistakenly used the possessive form of 'who' -- whoops! Embarrassing! But I liked what I wrote otherwise and so I restated it. Now though you have BOTH versions so I presume I've made my point! (Over and over...) "
To: 9:05 AM wrote on Apr 11, 2007 12:30 PM:
" You seem to be doing an awful lot of backpedalling all of a sudden. Exactly how is this not a debate? Being on the debate team in high school and college, I realize that we don't have a judge, or ballots or trophies. But we're still abiding by much of the same rules. You've spent an awful lot of time on this topic peddling a couple of books. (Remind me: Who needs to turn off their computer again?) Now that folks are insisting that you ante up on some of your bolder claims, it's not a debate, you don't have to provide evidence, yadayada. I say put up or admit you've lost and go find something else to read. "
Michael Welch: Who's The "Massa" Here?... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:46 AM:
" Well 'believers believe' and we've been 'round 'n' 'round this bend before and where she stops -- it just seems that there's more confidence in the 'gospels' according to McDowell and Strobel than in MML&J but then they are ALL apologetics: they reinforce belief FOR Christians. (As per C. S. Lewis the books were written by already committed believers.) And all this anxiety over any questioning of the absolute historicity of the Bible just invites 'flamers' to throw gasoline -- so relax! YOU BELIEVE right? The points I bring out make no difference to you do they? Don't get so excited... "
Michael Welch: Whose The "Massa" Here? What's THAT About?... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:33 AM:
" Well 'believers believe' and we've been 'round 'n' round this bend before and where she stops -- well there seems much more confidence in the 'gospels' according to McDowell and Strobel than in MML&J but these are ALL apologetics which is fine: they reinforce belief FOR Christians primarily. Also there appears a great deal of anxiety over any arguments about the historical 'reality' of the Bible that just invites 'flamers' to throw gasoline. Relax! YOU BELIEVE right? Nothing those of us who question the absolute 'history' of the OT and NT say will alter your opinion right? Why blast off?... "
To:Debating 101 wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:12 AM:
" There is a difference between a debate and an arguement. Learn the difference, and then realize it is not incumbent upon anyone to prove anything to you. "
Step and Fetch it wrote on Apr 11, 2007 10:50 AM:
" Re:8:22pm post. yeees masssahhhh,we be good little Chritians. We keep our thoughts to ourselves massahhh. Please don't be angry massah. The majority of educated people in this country is wrong...you is riight, massah. The early Christians were just imagining things....there is no history, there is no evidence, all the apologists just make stuff up.......is that goood massahh, are you a happy massah? "
Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:24 AM:
" Wake up, people! The poster who posted on 4/10 at 4:34pm, 4:27pm, and 8:22pm is having fun here. He is using sarcasm and irony to point out how ridiculous the anti-Christian arguements are. He is probably a Christian with good intentions, but his point is lost because some people actually argue this way and believe these things. My hat is off to him,but sadly his comments reflect some real views out there. "
To:9:05pm wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:05 AM:
" If I engaged you in a debate, you would have a point. But I did not. I stated what I believe and some sources for evidence that I base my belief on. I did not say "I am going to prove to you, to your satisfaction, that this is true". So, for the love of your flying spaghetti monster, lighten up. Turn your computer off and read some books. You may(or may not) learn something. "
To:8:40pm wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:59 AM:
" Where did I say compelling evidence isn't needed? "
Debating 101 wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:05 PM:
" Asserting that something is true, and then refusing to provide evidence to support that assertion, does not usually win a debate. It usually just makes one look silly. "
To: 7:07pm wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:40 PM:
" In Josh McDowell's own words, there is "evidence that demands a verdict". According to you, Strobel and McDowell have provided real evidence. What is this evidence? No, wait, you just said that compelling evidence isn't needed, because it would make faith unnecessary. I guess we don't have to read Strobel's and McDowell's books after all. They would ruin everyone's faith. "
When did weasels learn to type? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:22 PM:
" "God gave us enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but not so much evidence as to make faith unnecessary." Then evangelical Christians (of which I assume you're one) need to stop trying to pass the Bible (OT or NT) off as a history, geology, biology, etc. textbook. Believe in whatever god(s) you please--that's your right. But for love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, keep religion in Church and home where it belongs. "
To:4:34pm wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:07 PM:
" You state that I have to provide real evidence. No, I do not. You also state that to date, no one has done so. Not true. Strobel and McDowell have. No one is claiming to prove anything. If it could be proven, faith would be unnecessary and we would not be having this discussion. God gave us enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but not so much evidence as to make faith unnecessary. For more, see "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel and "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Or, feel free to hang out here hoping for answers. "
Is Lee Strobel plugging his book on this board? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:17 PM:
" Man, you'd almost think so. If you want to base your arguments on "facts", you're in big trouble. Christianity isn't the oldest religion (unless you use weasel arguments about the Biblical Jews being honorary Christians). Worldwide, a third of the world is Christian. The other two-thirds is not. So you don't even have a simple majority. Sheesh. If people like you would just admit that you CHOOSE to believe the way you do and stop trying to pass your gimcracky world-view off as Eternal Truth, I might respect your opinion as much as your right to it. "
To: 9:06am wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:34 PM:
" I am going to keep asking about what Stobel and McDowell found until someone actually answers the question. It a very simple thing to do - just state the evidence that they found. What you believe is irrelevant when you're proving something to be true. You have to provide real evidence, and to date, no one has done so. As for your "stubborn child" remark, go look in the mirror. You're here just as often as I am. "
To: 2:54am wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:27 PM:
" It is easily demonstrable that the accounts of the life of Jesus are hearsay. The gospels are not eyewitness testimony; they are stories that were passed down to whoever wrote the gospels several years if not decades after Jesus died. We have no idea of who the original authors of the gospels were or if they actually witnessed Jesus' last days. We don't even know who Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were; any first-year Bible scholar can attest to that. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:04 PM:
" Strobel and McDowell did do the independent research. I simply don't find it reasonable that anyone, much less several people, would die for something they knew to be false. It just makes no sense. Your question before had to do with IF you believe the Gospels account of the life of Jesus and that he rose from the dead. So, to answer your question, we have to start with those facts as a given. Given that, someone who does believe would not call Jesus a liar by agreeing there are other ways to God. That does seem exclusive, but truth by its very definition is exclusive. "
Michael Welch: "One More Thing" Re: "Columbo"... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:18 PM:
" By the way re: 'eyewitness testimony': legal experience has shown that while it surely is 'compelling' eyewitnesses often disagree and present contradictory and even false evidence (though not always deliberately false of course). The 'legend' is that eyewitnesses are the most reliable but the experience is that independent research and judgments are needed to discern the actual 'truth' of a matter... "
Michael Welch: Yes Be Skeptical... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:09 PM:
" ALL sources about antiquity ought to be treated with judicious skepticism -- especially when ANY of them propose 'supernatural' occurrences and attribute god-like powers to humans. The gospels are not chiefly biographical accounts but provide bases (plural of 'basis') for the FAITH in Jesus. One doesn't have to 'believe' everything in Caesar's 'Commentaries' either except as Caesar's 'view' of events. What one DOES with one's religion is of PRIMARY importance but then that's REALLY up to you... "
To:5:45pm wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:06 AM:
" Are you aware that eyewitness testimony is one of the most compelling forms of legal evidence? Bits and pieces of the evidence you request have been given in previous posts. You keep asking what they found that was so compelling. Read the books if you really care. If you are only here to dig your heels in like a stubborn child, refuse to be convinced, and argue, I am not here to oblige you. I stated what I believe and why. You are free to do what you wish. "
To: To: 8:38am wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:54 AM:
" Your contention that "All the documents we have on the life of Jesus is exactly that - second and third-hand hearsay." is not demonstrable. Certainly it is fashionable among certain schools of biblical exegesis to distrust the historical testimony of authorship and to attribute the texts to later redactors. However, that is not established "fact". Christianity emerged and grew in the midst of eyewitnesses that could have rebutted its claims. A modern day parallel is the holocaust deniers who do not enjoy credibility simply because eyewitness testimony so easily refutes their claims. First century Gnostic sects also arose countering claims of Christianity, but died out precisely because their teachings couldn't withstand scrutiny. "
To: 8:38am wrote on Apr 9, 2007 5:45 PM:
" Are you aware that hearsay is not admissible as "legal evidence"? All the documents we have on the life of Jesus is exactly that - second and third-hand hearsay. Are you also aware that one cannot have an "anti-supernatural bias" because no such evidence of the supernatural exists? Instead of constantly referring to Strobel and McDowell, why don't you just state the "compelling evidence" that they found? What did they find that is co compelling? Let me guess - time and space limitations prevent you from doing so. "
Re:3:17pm wrote on Apr 9, 2007 4:40 PM:
" OK, I don't care who you are, THAT is funny! Thanks for lightening the mood on what can sometimes be a heated debate. "
brainwashing of children... wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:17 PM:
" I have a nephew who recently proclaimed to my (democratic) grandmother that "all democrats are liars and cheats"
brainwashing should be illegal. Children wonder about all sorts of things, and it is only natural to help them explore them, and encourage them in what you think is the right direction. But telling them blatant lies and squashing the virtue of thinking for yourself is just wrong "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:12 PM:
" Well, Michael, let me answer your question with what I "wouldn't" do once I believe. I wouldn't proceed to tell people that Jesus was mistaken when he claimed to be the only way to God, or that he never said it, or whatever. Once I believe, I would feel it is my duty to spread the Word, so to speak. Having said that, I certainly don't agree with the methodology of the people depicted in this movie. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Apr 9, 2007 1:55 PM:
" It is no more circumstantial than anything else 2,000 years ago. At the time,the evidence was not circumstantial. At the time(as shown below) there were many reliable eyewitness accounts. As a side note, circumstantial evidence can sometimes be very compelling. "
Michael Welch: You "Believe"!? Now What?... wrote on Apr 9, 2007 11:56 AM:
" The 'evidence' is of course 'circumstantial' and the gospel sources are two millennia old, not 'history' as we understand it today and not researched, documented and disputed by historical scholarship until recent times. Obviously 'faith' figures into 'belief'; e. g. the accounts of the martyrdoms of the disciples are rife with 'magical' occurrences and come from a legendary tradition. If one examines those gospels even the names of the individual 'apostles' differ and their identities are somewhat mixed. The most important aspect though is what YOU DO with your belief rather than just say you 'believe'... "
To Michael Welch wrote on Apr 9, 2007 11:10 AM:
" I found a verse that describes your anti Christian stance....Proverbs 14:16 "A wise [man] feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident." "
How about getting a local charismatic / Christian pastor's view on "Jesus Camp"? wrote on Apr 9, 2007 9:02 AM:
" Nothing against David Best, but Joe, if you're truly curious about the charismatic side of evangelicalism (not that "Jesus Camp" accurately reflects even half of charismatics), why not interview the pastor of, say, Living Word Church or River's Harvest?
And to the "To:7:51" person, time to do a little historical refresher course. Research before you mock. "
To:12:12am wrote on Apr 9, 2007 8:51 AM:
" But we aren't in Iran. We are free to believe what we wish to here. Societal behavior is not the sole documentation of the truth of beliefs, but it should certainly be considered. The fact is, most educated people in this country(where we are free to believe what we wish) celebrate Easter. This is 2,000 years after the fact. If there was no Resurrection, all the enemies of Christianity would have had to do was parade Jesus' dead body through the streets, and Christianity would have been stopped dead in its tracks before it even really got started. Add to this the sources listed below by Christian Apologists, etc. I acknowledge there is no concrete, irrefutable proof. If there was, we would not be having this discussion. God has given us enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but not so much evidence as to make faith unnecessary. "
To:1:11am wrote on Apr 9, 2007 8:38 AM:
" I guess you have more credibility and are better able to examine legal evidence than legal scholars like Lord Darling(former Chief Justice of England) and Lee Strobel(former legal investigator for the Chicago Tribune). There is a lot more evidence than the Gospels. There are extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus' followers being martyred for their beliefs(the idea being you would not die for something you knew to be false-and if the Resurrection was a hoax-his followers would have known). Also, Christianity would have never gotten off the ground if the Resurrection didn't occur, and we would not be having this discussion 2,000 years later. Also, you need to look at the credibility of the eyewitness accounts. The only good reason one would have to doubt would be an anti-supernatural bias. Read the sources listed in the 11:17am post as they go into more detail regarding the evidence-which is very compelling. "
To: 7:51pm wrote on Apr 8, 2007 1:11 AM:
" Yes, let's look at the "legal evidence": Four short and very old documents, whose authors have never been identified. They were written many years after Jesus died, and they contradict each other in several places. None of them contain first person testimony from Jesus himself. No artifacts from the crucifixion. No verified tomb of Jesus. Yep, the "evidence" is irrefutable....LOL. "
Case Closed wrote on Apr 8, 2007 12:12 AM:
" More like 'mind closed'. In Iran, the Ayatollahs control the state and the country marches in lock-step with the Moslem faith. In Israel, cars are stoned if driving through Jewish neighborhoods on the Jewish Sabbath. Does that prove the validity of those religions as well. It is absurd to comment on societal behavior as some documentation of the truth of beliefs. When everyone thought the earth was flat, that didn't make it so either. "
Legal Beagle wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:17 PM:
" To answer the first inquiry on this posting:
In Wisconsin and every state I know, brainwashing of children is in fact not illegal. Unless you could spin it as child endangerment there is no legal issue, and you probably couldn't spin it that way unless some kind of physically dangerous situation arose.
Brainwash away if you want. Just make sure they don't do a documentary on you.
For anyone who is mad, I'm kidding.
"
Matt wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:13 PM:
" Hoppy Easter everybody!!! "
Resurrection: Real or fake? wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:19 PM:
" This past Friday, businesses were closed, public schools were closed, peoples schedules were different. Sunday the restaurants will be expecting bigger crowds for brunch and have different foods than usual. What could be the cause of this? A holiday commemorating a fictitious event? To believe that is just asinine. I will let others debate the evidence-I will deal with common sense:if the Resurrection didn't happen, Christianity would have never taken hold, and we would not be having this discussion. Case closed. "
To:3:23pm wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:51 PM:
" Dr Simon Greenleaf,the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, wrote a column where he examined the legal value of the testimony of the Apostles to the Resurrection. His conclusion was that the Resurrection was one of the best supported events in history according to the laws of legal evidence. Another lawyer, Frank Morrison, set out to refute the evidence for the Resurrection. However, upon approaching the facts with his legal background and training, he had to change his mind. He eventually wrote "Who Moved The Stone". After examining the evidence from a judicial persective, Lord darling, former Chief Justice of England came to the conclusion that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in the verdict that the Resurrection is true. Yes, people "think" this is true. But they have a good basis for thinking this. So, of course, we would teach our children this. "
Steve Winn wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:42 PM:
" Let me get this straight ... we're suppose to form an opinion about a movie from a couple of paragraphs written by someone who saw it? And get all worked up over his impressions? It isn't exactly brainwashing ... but it does seem like a pointless exercise. "
As for brainwashing wrote on Apr 7, 2007 3:23 PM:
" Like it or not, the things ingrained into our heads when we are in our single digit years stays with us forever. We can try to shake them, but they always sit in the back of our minds. Our parents, teachers, elders, etc teach us what they *think* is the truth. In reality, they don't have the answer to the Jesus question any more than some non-believer does. When you look at the psychology of man; the way people always want an answer for the things that have no answer; the way martyrs are viewed and being absolutely correct in their teachings - it makes me seriously question all man-made religions and beliefs. Yes, your religion is man-made. Even if you claim that it originates from some book.
"
Michael Welch: "The Chosen"?... wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:35 AM:
" Well 'brainwashing' is rampant in US political culture or we wouldn't have this horrid debilitating war(s) and a president who should never have been inaugurated at all. The 'missing' element in 'evangelical' literalist Christianity (or in ANY similar fundamentalist stance in ANY religion) is humility; 'God' in the three monotheisms is absolutely beyond human understanding and control and the 'channeling' of His 'will' by believers is a form of blasphemous sacrilege. 'W' is in fact the 'chief blasphemer,' a self-proclaimed 'messenger.' 'Love your enemies,' not kill them, is the MOST important Christian virtue... "
To:Question wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:17 AM:
" It depends on your definition of brainwashing. If you mean "teaching" of any kind, no it is not illegal. It goes on in our schools everyday. You see, Christians believe that the historical evidence shows that Jesus was a real person who made some very bold claims. They also believe that Jesus backed up those claims-that the Resurrection was an actual historic event-a real time, a real place, a real event. For more, see Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell and The Case For Easter by Lee Strobel. So, to not teach our children that would be extremely negligent. If that were to become illegal in this country, we are all in trouble. "
Question wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:15 AM:
" Teaching children about Jesus is not brainwashing. One can easily teach about Jesus, Buddha, or any holy man in a responsible and respectful way. However, INDOCTRINATING children at a "Jesus Camp" is definitely brainwashing. It is not much different than the Branch Davidian cult. Those kids have no chance to think for themselves. If they disagree with or refuse to follow what they are "taught", what do you think happens to them? "
Time for Christians to look in the mirror wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:14 AM:
" Sorry, but it's time for you folks who call yourselves "Christians" to face up to the ugly, self-serving side of the faith. Particularly those of you who like to bang on about how America is supposedly a "Christian nation". If any one flavor of Christianity does take over this country, it won't be the wonderful Sunday School ladies of my childhood. It'll be the Fred Phelpses of this world. And you, with your "The separation of Church and State is a myth" nonsense will bear the blame. "
Re:Is the brainwashing of children illegal? wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:39 AM:
" Teaching children about Jesus is brainwashing, but teaching them that the earth and animals are more important than human life isn't? Some of what our school systems teach children is pure fantasy, we allow it because it calms our conscience where God is concerned. I disagree with some of what is described to be portrayed in the film, however children need Jesus too. God is not dead he is a living savior, we need to recognize that and teach our children. "
Question wrote on Apr 7, 2007 12:23 AM:
" Is the brainwashing of children illegal? "
Advertisement 
