I feel sorry for you modernists, who pick and choose out of the Bible, or else reject it altogether, because it contains messages that affront your "feelings." And then you want to blame me, or some other orthodox believer, for those things being in the Bible.

Yes, God defines sexual morality and restricts behavior, utterly banning certain activities. I didn't put those verses in there, and even if I wanted to, I couldn't take them out. Which I do not want to do! Obeying God leads to blessings and peace. Rebelling against His laws, as modernists have taken upon themselves to do, inevitably leads to statist tyranny. Don't take my word for it--check out the history of the 20th century.

<TCE>, you would not have felt "miserable," before adopting Dan Brown/Anne Rice theology, if you had understood the Gospel of God's grace. Each and every human being is a sinner, and each and every human has the opportunity to repent and receive salvation by means of Jesus Christ.

Are you serious? You mean you couldn't derive any moral lessons or guidelines from the Bible if you didn't consider it to be literally true? If so, that seems sad. Even I am able to do that.

<I feel sorry for you modernists, who pick and choose out of the Bible, or else reject it altogether, because it contains messages that affront your "feelings." And then you want to blame me, or some other orthodox believer, for those things being in the Bible.

Yes, God defines sexual morality and restricts behavior, utterly banning certain activities. I didn't put those verses in there, and even if I wanted to, I couldn't take them out. Which I do not want to do! Obeying God leads to blessings and peace. Rebelling against His laws, as modernists have taken upon themselves to do, inevitably leads to statist tyranny. Don't take my word for it--check out the history of the 20th century.>

Your position is logically absurd - let me show you why. I have no less reason to react to a Muslim who says this to me:

"I feel sorry for you modernists, who pick and choose out of the the Qu'ran, or else reject it altogether, because it contains messages that affront your "feelings." And then you want to blame me, or some other orthodox believer, for those things being in the Qu'ran.

"Yes, Allah defines sexual morality and restricts behavior, utterly banning certain activities. I didn't put those verses in there, and even if I wanted to, I couldn't take them out. Which I do not want to do! Obeying Allah leads to blessings and peace. Rebelling against His laws, as modernists have taken upon themselves to do, inevitably leads to statist tyranny. Don't take my word for it--check out the history of the 20th century."

<TCE: <<<<<Matthew 8:22>>>> But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.>

Again, pretty straight forward stuff. Death is a spiritual condition nothing more. It matters not whether we have a physical body.>

I note you didn't address <at all> the passage I presented, Luke 13:3. All Scripture must be reconciled. You can not reconcile Luke 13:3 with your position. As for the passage you set forth, Jesus is making a point something along the lines of "Let the <spiritually> dead bury the <physically> dead." There, simple reconciliation.

<<<<<1 Corinthians 15:51>>>> Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,>

<Death is a type of spiritual sleep since it is temporary and causes us to forget what our true reality is. >

The "we" there is the Christian who dies in Christ. At the resurrection of the dead, "we" will be changed. Simple reconciliation.

<<<<<Romans 13:11>>>> And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.>

<We can probably all agree that Jesus did not come to save the world from physical death. People's bodies still pass away regardless of what they believe. Jesus came to waken us from spiritual sleep.>

Which is horrible - one of the most backward traits of America. A legal system that allows new evidence to be admitted and incorrectly sentenced subjects to be released is much better IMO.

<The eyewitness testimony to the resurrerction of Jesus really ends the discussion>

<Then you are also compelled to accept eye witness testimony of any other extraordinary events, including ghost stories and UFO sightings. I don't know what you do in cases where two groups of eye witnesses disagree. Disappear into a puff of illogic?>

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that if you accept eye witness testimony as the be all and end all:

<That would count as provable in my book.>

<The eyewitness testimony to the resurrerction of Jesus really ends the discussion.>

<whatthefat: I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that if you accept eye witness testimony as the be all and end all: >

You're an idiot. The Qu'ran in no way supports terrorism.> No you are the idiot!! You arrogant little bas%$#@!! Then why does the Gihad blow themselves up? For fun??

No, because they're idiots. They think they're doing "God's work", in the same way the Christian Crusaders were apparently doing God's work in murdering thousands of Muslims. Holy scriptures have long been abused by the faithful as justifications for violence. Even George Bush felt he was working under the auspices of God in invading Iraq.

<That B.S. book you spoke of was written 600 years after The Christian Bible! How many Fictitious lies and stupidity was made up in all that time?!>

So what? Does that mean you accept the existence of UFOs and ghosts? Thousands of eye witnesses can't be wrong.

<Are you so skeptical of what people tell you they've seen in all areas of life?>

Because I call attention to God's laws and support them as universally valid, you accuse me of "imposing my views" on everyone. You ought to buy yourself a dictionary and look up words like "express" and "impose." Instead, you seek refuge in the usual hackneyed comparison of Biblical Christianity to Islam--while incidentally revealing your own total historical ignorance (your take on the Crusades is just so New York Times)--and ignoring the rather critical difference of trying to persuade people to one's point of view (our approach) and beheading them if they dissent (Islam's method).

If your understanding of science matches your understanding of history, religion, and the English language, you are very badly off indeed.

I'm curious as to what you could possibly mean by this. Given those recent discussions, I can only assume you consider me "amply refuted" on the following points:

- The Qur'an does not advocate terrorism.

- Eye witness testimony does not constitute proof (i.e., it cannot be considered 100% accurate).

- The Bible should not be considered more accurate than holy texts written after it purely on the basis of precedence.

<Because I call attention to God's laws and support them as universally valid, you accuse me of "imposing my views" on everyone>

Please. Are you actually pretending to not be outspoken about your views on the wicked ways of liberals, relativists, modernists, humanists, Muslims, etc. etc. and how they are responsible for what you see as the decay of society? I've never seen such a bigoted blowhard.

<Instead, you seek refuge in the usual hackneyed comparison of Biblical Christianity to Islam>

I need not have chosen Islam, I could have chosen any religion. As usual, you don't even try to challenge the fact that I can take any statement you make about the "truth of Christianity", substitute any other religion, and produce a statement that is no less compelling and no less based in evidence. You can't seem to accept that your religion (like all religions) is a matter of faith, not a provable truth.

<while incidentally revealing your own total historical ignorance (your take on the Crusades is just so New York Times)>

So you deny thousands of Muslims were murdered in the name of God during the Crusades? You deny that the violence was justified on religious grounds? You might like to brush up on your history there.

<and ignoring the rather critical difference of trying to persuade people to one's point of view (our approach) and beheading them if they dissent (Islam's method).>

Hilarious! You call terrorism "Islam's method". Could *you* be any more ignorant? It might be time to do some traveling - broaden your horizons a little. Don't worry, that middle eastern guy in the seat next to you isn't going to blow up the plane.

You're identifying the actions of fundamentalist Muslims - who the great majority of Muslims fundamentally disagree with and consider to be in direct contradiction with the Qur'an - as "Islam's method". I might as well identify you and all other Christians with the actions of fringe fundamentalist Christian groups.

The fact that you are writing books for children is outright terrifying. I only hope you don't have any children of your own.

<If your understanding of science matches your understanding of history, religion, and the English language, you are very badly off indeed.>

Forgive me if I don't think you're in a position to claim to be my superior in any academic field besides Bible studies (if that even qualifies as an academic field?). But even there you're apparently found lacking, being unable to take anything of value from the book unless you consider it to be completely true.

<Sorry to slam you like this... but you asked for it.>

<whatthefat: So what? Does that mean you accept the existence of UFOs and ghosts? Thousands of eye witnesses can't be wrong.>

You keep creating these strawmen summaries of my position and forays into the abusrd extreme. I think you're aware you're losing this argument. No, I don't accept the existence of UFO's and ghosts. Thousands of eyewitnesses can be wrong.

<whatthefat: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.>

Fair enough. But you keep stopping this argument at the very beginning when I appeal to eyewitness testimony. I stipulate eyewitnesses can be wrong, both by deceit and delusion. There goes 95% of your objections so far. Can we move beyond that?

<If you tell me your brother went shopping yesterday, I'll be inclined to believe you fairly easily. If you tell me your brother is the son of God, I'm going to demand some very stringent evidence.>

Good enough. And yet when I first bring forth the idea of eyewitnesses, your <first> reaction is to point out the possibility eyewitnesses can be wrong. So what?

<Written statements of ten of his best friends isn't going to cut it. If it did, I'd have to sign up to every religion, cult, and supernatural phenomenon. And the problem is, most religions share approximately the same quality of evidential support, and directly contradict each other on a number of points. >

You're confusing reductio ad absurdum with a strawman. If thousands of eye witnesses can be wrong, then so can the Bible. And you have no objective way of determining whether that is the case or not. Worse still, you have no more or less reason to reject the claims of other religious texts. That is the problem.

<Now. Yes or no. Are people put to death based upon eyewitness testimony? If the answer is yes, does that indicate that some important/large segment of society considers eyewitness testimony an important and credible source of truth?>

Yes some are put to death. But there are two problems with your next statement:

(1) You are equating what society considers to be likely truthful with that which is *provably true*. Eye witness testimony is the former, but not the latter.

(2) There are many questions over the reliability of the eye witness testimony given in the Bible even compared to most of accepted historical records, including but not limited to the lack of unbiased witnesses, the lack of any corroborating physical evidence, and the lack of independence of eye witness reports.

Stipulated.

<And you have no objective way of determining whether that is the case or not.>

Denied.

<Worse still, you have no more or less reason to reject the claims of other religious texts. That is the problem.>

Who says?

<<You are equating what society considers to be likely truthful with that which is *provably true*. Eye witness testimony is the former, but not the latter.>

To the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Okay. So because there is no way to affirm the Bible as "provably true", you are free to ignore it? All people <should> ignore it? That's where you are right now. If you think I've misstated that, feel free to correct me, but I think that is a logical conclusion from your position.

<There are many questions over the reliability of the eye witness testimony given in the Bible even compared to most of accepted historical records, including but not limited to the lack of unbiased witnesses, the lack of any corroborating physical evidence, and the lack of independence of eye witness reports>

I realize eye witness testimony is all you've got, which is why you keep coming back to it. But if I accept eye witness testimony as a suitable standard for determining truth, then I am forced to become not only a Christian, but also a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Scientologist, and a Mormon, not to mention a believer in ghosts, UFOs, spoon bending, astrology, etc. etc.

<Could you identify the quality of evidential support you have observed in the claims of the resurrection of Jesus?>

We have only supposed eye witness testimonies. The actual dates of those testimonies are in question. The date of the event isn't properly recorded. The independence of the testimonies is highly dubious (Matthew and Luke both widely plagiarize Mark). There are no mentions of the event by contemporary historians. And there is no physical evidence whatsoever to corroborate the events.

I think it's <most> of what I've got. I am not impressed with some of the circumstantial evidence the likes of Josh McDowell set forth.

<But if I accept eye witness testimony as a suitable standard for determining truth, then I am forced to become not only a Christian, but also a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Scientologist, and a Mormon, not to mention a believer in ghosts, UFOs, spoon bending, astrology, etc. etc.>

Not if the credibility of the eyewitnesses for any particular belief is questionable. I think your point is a legitimate response to Pascal's Wager, which I tend to avoid since I don't think it's a strong argument for my side.

<We have only supposed eye witness testimonies. The actual dates of those testimonies are in question. The date of the event isn't properly recorded. The independence of the testimonies is highly dubious (Matthew and Luke both widely plagiarize Mark). There are no mentions of the event by contemporary historians. And there is no physical evidence whatsoever to corroborate the events.>

What was the status of date keeping in the first century? Just because there are a number of contemporary historians who did record the event, and they are typically categorized as "The Bible" doesn't mean you can dismiss them with a wave of the hand. Almost as importantly, where are the objecting historians? What possible physical evidence could we have? Such as might be claimed couldn't begin to pass a test of chain of custody.

<If this is sufficient to accept as the <absolute truth>, then why are we not accepting the claims of other historical documents of the same calibre?>