*sigh*

Anyway, in deference to our host <Big Pawn>, I will extend the olive branch of peace to <OCF> by commending him on his comment, <The manuscript evidence for the NT, including the central event of the resurrection, is staggering compared to any other historical recordings>.

*applause*

Well said <OhioChessFan>!

If one feels that certain miracles in the Bible are uncontroversial, what is it about other miracles that they are so unbelievable? What is the rational process to decide the difference between them?

If it's unscientific to believe in Noah's ark, why is it scientific to believe that a dead man became alive again?

Any trolling posts will be deleted though, whether it's you or someone else.

You recognize mort the weasel is in here trying to stir up trouble between you and <Ohio>? I've let his post stand because it's a serious post and isn't an egg throwing post. Hopefully you and <Ohio> can see that he is working on causing division between you two.

Who is going to be shown to be wiser? You guys or mort?

I'm not going to let troublemakers derail the discussions I'm trying to foster in here. It's my goal to foster high level back and forth here. I allowed their comments to stand hoping they would follow up with genuine engagement but they didn't.

I don't want my forum to be a bathroom wall. I seek intelligent discourse here.

If they want to fling boogers they can do it at <Rogoff> like we all do.

What is the objective truth?>

That liberalism is a lie.
...at least when you have the power/wealth of the US to soil your hands with.

<What is the rational process to decide the difference between them?> Context.

<If it's unscientific to believe in Noah's ark, why is it scientific to believe that a dead man became alive again?> It's not scientific and it's not just any dead man.

Look, at the risk of repeating myself...

Science can show substantial evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution which therefore disproves a young earth creation.

Science can reference geological and archeaological proof against a world-wide flood and Noah's ark.

Science can point to conclusive verification that dead people do not rise to life after 36 hours, BUT they cannot disprove that one particular person did just that 2,000 years ago.

Science can disprove Adam & Eve as humanity's first parents 6,000 years ago but can never disprove Christ rose from the dead.

Your basic misunderstanding Colonel, is in equating all miracles and everything else in the Bible without differentiation.

It may work among Maasai Warriors.>

Thank you <diceman>.

The problem for atheists is that they have no arguments, evidence or reasons to justify the truth claiming proposition, "God does not exist".

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical...

I'll put it on my reading list.

In the meantime, regarding something you posted earlier...

<Big Pawn: ... I've even heard people use the 140 year old argument that the NT was just a rewrite of old pagan myths, completely unaware that NT scholars and critics have dismissed this over 100 years ago. It's like they are taking their cues from Internet infidels on YouTube, and believing it. People today think they are smart and they want "modern proof" for the resurrection, but they settle for infidel YouTube videos. Unreal.>

That led me to re-read C. S. Lewis' essay "Myth Became Fact" from his book "God In The Dock".

Lewis says, "Now as myth transcends thought, incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying god, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences...By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle."

What atheists and fundamentalists have in common is their inability to differentiate myth from fact.

To the atheists, because Noah's Ark is a myth, then the Resurrection is a myth.

To the fundamentalists, because the Resurrection is a fact, then Noah's Ark is a fact.

That's why <Colonel Mortimer> and <OhioChessFan> are so much alike.

They're the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of chessgames.com!

Tweedledum and Tweedledee / Agreed to have a battle / For Tweedledum said Tweedledee / Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow / As black as a tar-barrel / Which frightened both the heroes so / They quite forgot their quarrel.

Well, I'm like a big scary bird who's frightened them both away!

And all I did was present irrefutable logic!

<That's why <Colonel Mortimer> and <OhioChessFan> are so much alike.>

They are fundamentally different. <ohio> is a Christian that believes John 3:16.

<mort> is an evil, ignorant person who rejects God and willfully embraces evil and ignorance.

<Well, I'm like a big scary bird who's frightened them both away!

And all I did was present irrefutable logic! >

<mort> is not incapable of having a high level discussion about this stuff, so he stays away. Every now and then when he sees a new internet infidel meme, he trots it out here like it's some profound statement, but that's all. Kid's stuff.

<ohio> has no respect for you or me because he's sure that he understands my (or your) viewpoint as 100% wrong. He is quick to speak about my viewpoint, but that's small potatoes. The bottom line is <ohio> believe John 3:16 and that's that.

They cut out the stuff they have difficulty believing, and cut out the stuff they find too nasty.

The Bible is the bedrock of Christianity, and as Christians they should own it, all of it.

<Big Pawn: ... <mort> is not incapable of having a high level discussion about this stuff, so he stays away.>

Is that right? Should your post read, "<mort> is not capable..." or "<mort> is incapable..." or "<mort> is not incapable, but chooses to be ignorant anyway?"

<Big Pawn: ... <ohio> has no respect for you or me because he's sure that he understands my (or your) viewpoint as 100% wrong. He is quick to speak about my viewpoint, but that's small potatoes. The bottom line is <ohio> believe John 3:16 and that's that. Everything else is small potatoes, <optimal>.>

Yes, what I meant is that they are so much alike in that they each show no respect for anybody who isn't 100% in agreeance with their own narrow points of view.

Even though they are at opposite ends of the spectrum as regards to the Bible, religion, politics etc, they are actually identical in their attitudes and prejudices.

Certainly belief (John 3:16) makes all the difference, and by comparison, all else is indeed "small potatoes", but in the battle of ideas against the atheists, fundamentalists like <Ohio> are of little help, since they exclude science and intellectual progress from their world view.

<Colonel Mortimer: <Big Pawn> and <optimal play> have a liberal view of the Bible. They cut out the stuff they have difficulty believing, and cut out the stuff they find too nasty.> Wrong!

You obviously don't know what you're talking about!

<Colonel Mortimer: ... The Bible is the bedrock of Christianity, and as Christians they should own it, all of it.> Actually, the Church is the bedrock of Christianity (having preceded the Bible, cf Matthew 16:18), but in any event, as Christians we certainly do own all of it.

<Colonel Mortimer: ... <Ohio> does, and he does so consistently. That's why he is strong in his faith while you lot flounder.> Nobody is doubting <Ohio>'s faith. That's the point <Big Pawn> made in regards to John 3:16 and with which I concur.

Now, Colonel, we're wise to your dishonest activity both here and on Rogoff, as St Paul the Apostle warned, "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

If Christianity doesn't suit you, there are plenty of other faiths/religions/beliefs/philosophies you can choose from.

Yes, your correction is correct. I mistyped.

<Yes, what I meant is that they are so much alike in that they each show no respect for anybody who isn't 100% in agreeance with their own narrow points of view.

Even though they are at opposite ends of the spectrum as regards to the Bible, religion, politics etc, they are actually identical in their attitudes and prejudices.>

Ok, now I see your point. Yes, I suppose there are some similarities but the motives are different. <Ohio> believes what he says and in his own way contributes honestly to the discussion, but <morts> sole purpose is to sow discord among us. He's an evil, ignorant being who hates what is good and loves what is wrong.

- Romans 16:17>

Perfect.

To watch mort try to do his thing, is like watching a little child scheme his way into his first lie, easily and entirely noticed by any discerning adult. His attempts to divide are so predictable that I could have written his post for him based on countless reruns I've seen before.

No, you're just pointing out your disingenuousness once again!

Nobody has disputed that <Ohio> is consistent in his faith, we just differ on biblical interpretation.

<If Christianity doesn't suit you, there are plenty of other faiths/religions/beliefs/philosophies you can choose from.>

Christianity suits me just fine thank you very much!

<Just because your parents chose your faith for you, doesn't mean you have no choice in your (presumably) adult lives to chose a different path!>

I don't agree with your description of <Colonel Mortimer> as "an evil, ignorant being who hates what is good and loves what is wrong", but rather that, for some reason, he has developed a hatred of America and that has distorted his perception of reality.

<I just try to seek the truth and a deeper understanding while exercising critical thinking skills. I try to think about my thinking and monitor my inner narrative as I study the bible or consider philosophical arguments related to theism and Christianity. Sometimes I like to ask hard questions and push for a definitive answer, but it's Socratic in spirit. I realize that not all Christians are like this, so I just try to find like minded people who can engage like this. You are one of them.>

Yep, I can certainly relate to that.

That's why it's difficult trying to have an intelligent conversation with Ohio or the Colonel.

They won't consider any alternative view from their own intransigent positions.

Whereas I'm open to other opinions and will try to understand alternative viewpoints, Ohio and the Colonel are completely closed to any perspective different from their own.

The Colonel routinely engages in 'whataboutery'. He'll never discuss the issue at hand, but just say "Oh well, what about those terrible Christians", or "See how bad America is", while completely ignoring the fact that the discussion was about something completely different.

Ohio just refuses to answer any questions point blank! He fires off a salvo and then retreats back to his bunker.

A wholly gratuitous statement unworthy of a response.>

It's a true statement. If you had been born to a Muslim family you would now be practising Islam.

Mort's reasoning: because your parents were Christians, Christianity isn't true.

Mort, tell us why you reject atheism in favor of pantheism. I've asked you this a thousand times and you never, ever answer. You say things like, "I don't want to persuade anybody" and then run away.