| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 10:43:33 AM |
| Object: |
Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The
New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser
Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he
compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation
which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution
still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists
have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first
glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most
technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous
stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so
much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/19.112.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Claytonus Vs. Godzilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 11:56:45 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:5ibi4156t4krrrnibueicjum3ncelfq4sh@4ax.com...
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Ladies and gentlemen....the delusion, deception, ignorance and insanity of
Christianity summed up in two sentences!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 02:27:17 PM |
|
|
"Claytonus Vs. Godzilla" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:5ibi4156t4krrrnibueicjum3ncelfq4sh@4ax.com...
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Ladies and gentlemen....the delusion, deception, ignorance and insanity of
Christianity summed up in two sentences!!
No, just the delusion and ignorance of one branch of Christianity that
bases its faith on poor theology.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rally" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 01:53:23 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:5ibi4156t4krrrnibueicjum3ncelfq4sh@4ax.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the firstand angriestpost-election hissy fits: In The
New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser
Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he
compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation
which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution
still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists
have had over our educational institutions for a century.
<snip>
Whoa! Stop right there!
If the "evolutionists" have had an "iron grip" over our educational
institutions, and that is a bad thing as it is apparently a conscious
attack on religion, (xian, of course) then why are there so many nutty
freekin' xians running around after 100 years, (a generation), of the
EAC's efforts? More today than 100 years ago! (I bet that is a safe
assumption.)
Damn! The EAC long range plan is failing!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RHertz" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 03:59:46 PM |
|
|
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Schaffner" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 04:34:45 PM |
|
|
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> writes:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
This is pure ad hominem. Colson should be ignored (or refuted)
because his arguments are specious and often stupid, not because he is
a convicted felon.
--
Steve Schaffner
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 04:54:50 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 11:34:45 -0500, Steve Schaffner
<sfs@darwin.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> writes:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
This is pure ad hominem. Colson should be ignored (or refuted)
because his arguments are specious and often stupid, not because he is
a convicted felon.
He is ignored because he demonstrated himself to be a liar in
everything he says about atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 10:33:27 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:u12j419q0cevfoeguq3mh50kn5jte13ckb@4ax.com:
On 29 Mar 2005 11:34:45 -0500, Steve Schaffner
<sfs@darwin.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> writes:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried
and convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is
a convicted felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found
Jesus". Why should any sensible person listen to this criminal?
This is pure ad hominem. Colson should be ignored (or refuted)
because his arguments are specious and often stupid, not because he is
a convicted felon.
He is ignored because he demonstrated himself to be a liar in
everything he says about atheists.
Not a liar. I have not been given adequate reasons to doubt
Mr. Colson's convictions in any way. Fundamentalists really
do believe bad things about atheists and a bunch of other
folks as well.
I really did not mean that pun when I first started to type that
though I realized it before I finished the sentence.
Oh well, bad puns are a t.o. tradition.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there is."
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 07:26:41 PM |
|
|
Harlequin <usenet@cox.net> wrote in
news:Xns9628A8744B5F3usenet123mmcablecom@68.12.19.6:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:u12j419q0cevfoeguq3mh50kn5jte13ckb@4ax.com:
On 29 Mar 2005 11:34:45 -0500, Steve Schaffner
<sfs@darwin.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> writes:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried
and convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He
is a convicted felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found
Jesus". Why should any sensible person listen to this criminal?
This is pure ad hominem. Colson should be ignored (or refuted)
because his arguments are specious and often stupid, not because he
is a convicted felon.
He is ignored because he demonstrated himself to be a liar in
everything he says about atheists.
Not a liar. I have not been given adequate reasons to doubt
Mr. Colson's convictions in any way. Fundamentalists really
do believe bad things about atheists and a bunch of other
folks as well.
I really did not mean that pun when I first started to type that
though I realized it before I finished the sentence.
Oh well, bad puns are a t.o. tradition.
Sometimes the unintended are the best. I found it quite funny, almost
chezy in nature.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 02:19:41 PM |
|
|
Steve Schaffner <sfs@darwin.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> writes:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
This is pure ad hominem. Colson should be ignored (or refuted)
because his arguments are specious and often stupid, not because he is
a convicted felon.
Furthermore, since his sentence has been completed and he has been
legally released, his conviction should be left in the past. He has
"paid his debt" as the old cliche says. It is over and done with.
Also, from the other side there is this little thing called forgiveness.
Note: I do not necessarily agree with his theology, but that will be
based on his actual current statements, not his past.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 03:35:15 PM |
|
|
Steve Schaffner wrote:
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> writes:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried
and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a
convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why
should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
This is pure ad hominem.
Well, perhaps not "pure" ad hominem, which might
go something like: "Chuck Colson was part of the
Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate
Scandal. He is a convicted felon. He has no
credibility, even if he has 'found Jesus'. Therefore
what he says is false."
Colson should be ignored (or refuted)
because his arguments are specious and often stupid, not because he
is
a convicted felon.
Refuted _when_ his arguments are specious and or
stupid. One may also ignore what Colson will say
because his arguments are specious and often stupid.
But to _argue_ that he should be ignored on this basis
is probably the "poisoning the well" variation of
the ad hominem fallacy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 10:28:40 PM |
|
|
"RHertz" <rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> wrote in
news:TXe2e.45622$Az.7129@lakeread02:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried
and convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a
convicted felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus".
Why should any sensible person listen to this criminal?
Is not the _material_ presented by Mr. Colson weak enough that one
would not feel the need to attack the person and not attack the
argument?
And I do think that going after a man for non-violent acts committed
three decades ago, which he has served his debt to society for,
and which he has renounced his actions in is really all that of
a good thing.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there is."
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 03:53:06 PM |
|
|
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried
and convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He
is a > convicted felon. He has no credibility, even if he has
"found Jesus". > Why should any sensible person listen to this
criminal?
One shouldn't, necessarily. But evolution has far better arguments to
be made in its defense than, "But Chuck Colson did bad things
thirty-some years ago!
I recall last summer when John O'Neill and the other guy (some Freeper
whackjob - I can't recall his name at the moment) put out their Swift
Boats book. John O'Neill made a claim that was directly refuted by
Chuck Colson. Specifically, it has been claimed that the group
Veterans For A Just Peace was not a mere veterans group seeking a peace
in Vietnam which served American interests but a group set up
specifically to attack John Kerry, with whom Richard Nixon apparently
was a bit obsessed. The group was apparently organized and John
O'Neill made its titular head by Colson, at Nixon's behest, which makes
O'Neill look like a Nixon toady. O'Neill vehemently denies this.
Colson insists that it is true. Should I insist that John O'Neill is
telling the truth just because Colson was a Nixon dirty-trickster way
back when?
I can't imagine that Colson has any reason to say such a thing which
could only have been useful to the Kerry campaign unless it were true.
You can choose to disregard anything Colson says because he was
associated with Nixon back in the 1970s. And you may conincidentally
be correct in this disregard. But it is intellectually dishonest
reason to disregard what he says. It's as illogical and stupid as
saying, "I refuse to believe anything that Bill Clinton/George W.
Bush/[insert your favor public figure here] because they lied about
this, that, and the other thing! Therefore, whatever they say is
false!".
It's also stupid PR to defend evolutionary science in such a way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 04:54:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:59:46 -0500, "RHertz"
<rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> wrote:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
Since he "found Jesus" he set up a prison ministry which imagines it
makes them better if they find Jesus. A cornerstone of his technique
is to give them self-esteem but that depends on Jesus, and is achieved
by vicious slanders and falsehoods about atheists in a typical fundy
false dichotomy.
Fundies who think the sun shines out of his arse imagine that what he
says about atheists is true because it confirms their bigoted
prejudice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 12:56:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:59:46 -0500, "RHertz"
<rhertz314@spamlesscox.net> wrote:
Chuck Colson was part of the Nixon White House, was indicted, tried and
convicted for his participation in the Watergate Scandal. He is a convicted
felon. He has no credibility, even if he has "found Jesus". Why should any
sensible person listen to this criminal?
Since when is superstition 'sensible?'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore \Tocis\ Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 12:11:53 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Among those _facts_ is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin
(Emphasis mine)
That was a good one ;)
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 11:52:48 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first-and angriest-post-election hissy fits: In
The
New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser
Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he
compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation
which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution
still be called an enlightened nation?"
The short one to that is: "No!"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists
have had over our educational institutions for a century.
Hardly an iron-grip. Evolution, as established as any other science,
is taught in schools precisely because it is a very well established
science. Religion is taught in churches, synagogues, mosques and
elsewhere, including in the home. People are always free to choose to
believe what they wish. No one is forcing anyone to believe the one
over the other. This is, of course, a freedom secularists grant to
believers that believers absolutely would not grant in return, were
they to be allowed complete control.
And at first
glance, it seems odd that Americans-among the best-educated, most
technologically advanced people in the world-would choose
miraculous
stories over scientific ones.
I'd dispute everything between "Americans" and "world"
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles,
There's none!
and so much for naturalistic evolution?
There's 150 years' worth, published in a doversity of peer-reviewed
science journals the world over by people of all faiths and
nationalities.
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have
almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus,
he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
This is, of course, a lie. There is zero evidence outside of the
demonstrably error-prone Bible that there ever was a Jesus, much less
that he lived the life that is claimed and much less still that there
even is a god, let alone that he had this Jesus as his ***** child.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 11:10:29 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
<Snip>
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have
almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus,
he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence. What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 11:30:18 AM |
|
|
<Donalbain@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112094629.816203.309640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
<Snip>
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have
almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus,
he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence. What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
It says so in the bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 12:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:30:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
<Donalbain@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112094629.816203.309640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
<Snip>
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have
almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus,
he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence. What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
It says so in the bible
By Christian Logic® the chronicles of Superman®, The Flash®, Wonder
Woman®, SuperGirl®, and others like Tiamat the Dragon, The Frost
Giants, to name two, are also true.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johan Gustafsson" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 07:04:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
<Snip>
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have
almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus,
he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence. What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
Nothing. The few times I've heard one of them qualify the statement,
it's something about having more NT manuscripts than copies of Caesar's
work and such. Not only is this faulty reasoning, it also ignores the
other issues you raised above. But I suspect most who make this claim
haven't a clue of the relative amounts of evidence, they've just read it
in an apologetical book or heard it in a sermon.
It's bizarre that they would shoot down their case like this, because
it's an argument that *can* be used to defend the historicity of Jesus -
there are several people in ancient history with the same amount of
evidence for their existance that are usually treated as actual people
by historians. Of course, that also misses the point somewhat - if a new
piece of evidence overturns the case for one of these characters,
historians just revise their annals and move on, something I suspect
apologists will have a hard time with - but at least it doesn't have the
enormous stupidity of the Caesar argument.
As for evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin, I'd love to hear that
one myself.
--
Johan Gustafsson ***
Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 03:34:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
<Snip>
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have
almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus,
he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence. What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
Statues, paintings, historical writings, shards of a cross found by St.
Helene, the story of salvation matches the propecies in the Bible,
personal faith and revealed truth.
Of course none of this is real evidence, it is just faith-confirming.
And it is a non-sale as far as I am concerned.
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 12:54:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:34:39 -0600, Pithecanthropus Erectus
<tuibguy1EGNUM@comcast.net> wrote:
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
Slavery is freedom.
War is peace.
Ignorance is education.
Destruction is construction.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore \Tocis\ Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 12:12:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this?
It's an empty threat like so much else the fanatics babble.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "davidm" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 05:13:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence. What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
One of the Roman historians (Tacitus I think) mentions Jesus and
Christians, but (slightly embarassingly) Josephus, who wrote a history
of the Jews, does not mention him at all. Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death) and is the
earliest of the biblical writers is better attested to. Paul does write
about communities all over the Roman empire, and his descriptions match
archeological data. There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
later in the Empire (Pliny the Younger writes to Emperor Trajan about
whether people should be prosecuted for being Christian on the basis of
an [anonymous?] denounciation and Trajan replies `that is not the way
we do things now' (contrasting with how things were done by the later
Flavian emperors like Domition).
I think there is no question Jesus existed and the broad events of his
life (birth, became an itinerant preacher/teacher/healer, persecuted by
the Romans at the behest of the Jewish establishment, was cricified)
are as as well established as any ancient history (but why better than
Julius Ceasar I have no idea). That Jesus was a hearler seems
incontrovertible.
There are also later Jewish sources that mention Jesus (not always
favorably 8-).
Whether the birth was a `virgin birth', whether he actually died on the
cross and later returned alive (rather than seeming to die but in fact
went into a coma, was later revived but soon after died of his wounds
-- as the Passover Plot, e.g. suggests), whether the miracles listed in
the New testament happened as described, these do not seem to be
questions that archeology can answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 03:32:37 PM |
|
|
davidm wrote:
Donalbain@gmail.com wrote:
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. W
e
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts
of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to
me
to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence.
What
exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of evidence on
behalf of their favourite JC?
One of the Roman historians (Tacitus I think) mentions Jesus and
Christians, but (slightly embarassingly) Josephus, who wrote a
history
of the Jews, does not mention him at all.
Well actually he does, in Antiquities, but it is
probably a forgery that did not appear until the
4th Century.
Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death)
Is 20 or so years "soon after"?
and is the
earliest of the biblical writers is better attested to. Paul does
write
about communities all over the Roman empire, and his descriptions
match
archeological data.
Doesn't have much impact on the issue of Jesus actually
existing or not however.
There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
I don't think the existence of Christians was ever in dispute.
later in the Empire (Pliny the Younger writes to Emperor Trajan about
whether people should be prosecuted for being Christian on the basis
of
an [anonymous?] denounciation and Trajan replies `that is not the way
we do things now' (contrasting with how things were done by the later
Flavian emperors like Domition).
I think there is no question Jesus existed
Regardless, there is a question.
and the broad events of his
life (birth, became an itineran t preacher/teacher/healer, persecuted
by
the Romans at the behest of the Jewish establishment, was cricified)
are as as well established as any ancient history
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus. And virtually everything "known"
about Jesus comes from the Bible.
(but why better than
Julius Ceasar I have no idea). That Jesus was a hearler seems
incontrovertible.
How come?
There are also later Jewish sources that mention Jesus (not always
favorably 8-).
For instance?
Whether the birth was a `virgin birth', whether he actually died on
the
cross and later returned alive (rather than seeming to die but in
fact
went into a coma, was later revived but soon after died of his wounds
-- as the Passover Plot, e.g. suggests), whether the miracles listed
in
the New testament happened as described, these do not seem to be
questions that archeology can answer.
They are not questions that history can answer, period. As Hume
points out, historical data can only be interpreted if we assume the
same natural laws apply throughout time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 06:21:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
davidm wrote:
One of the Roman historians (Tacitus I think) mentions Jesus and
Christians, but (slightly embarassingly) Josephus, who wrote a
history of the Jews, does not mention him at all.
Well actually he does, in Antiquities, but it is
probably a forgery that did not appear until the
4th Century.
There are two references, the second of which has never been seriously
disputed. The first was generally considered an interpolation a
century ago; modern scholars do not consider that this is so, however.
For a study of the historiography of the passage, see Dr. Alice
Whealey's book, "Josephus and Jesus" (on Amazon).
Saul/Paul (who, of course did not know Jesus but lived and
wrote soon after Jesus's death) and is the earliest of the
biblical writers is better attested to. Paul does write
about communities all over the Roman empire, and his descriptions
match archeological data.
Doesn't have much impact on the issue of Jesus actually
existing or not however.
Since we know what Christians believe about Jesus, their presence at an
early date is testimony to the antiquity of their information, tho.
There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
later in the Empire (Pliny the Younger writes to Emperor Trajan
about
whether people should be prosecuted for being Christian on the
basis
of an [anonymous?] denounciation and Trajan replies `that is not
the way we do things now' (contrasting with how things were done
by the later Flavian emperors like Domition).
I think there is no question Jesus existed
Regardless, there is a question.
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it all.
and the broad events of his life (birth, became an itinerant
preacher/teacher/healer, persecuted by the Romans at the
behest of the Jewish establishment, was cricified)
are as as well established as any ancient history
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
Clearly there are. But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is one
only made by atheists about Jesus; I have yet to see it made for any
other ancient figure.
And virtually everything "known" about Jesus comes from the Bible.
Ad hominem argument, tho.
(but why better than Julius Ceasar I have no idea).
That can't be right. Better than some 3rd century emperors, if we
exclude archaeological evidence.
That Jesus was a hearler seems incontrovertible.
How come?
The testimony of the sources. How else?
Whether the birth was a `virgin birth', whether he actually died on
the cross and later returned alive (rather than seeming to die but
in fact went into a coma, was later revived but soon after died
of his wounds -- as the Passover Plot, e.g. suggests), whether
the miracles listed in the New testament happened as described,
these do not seem to be questions that archeology can answer.
They are not questions that history can answer, period.
Why? If I kick someone in the teeth, that can be shown to have
occurred by the methods of history. If I raise them from the dead, why
does this suddenly become impossible to show? It's nonsense, I think.
As Hume points out, historical data can only be interpreted
if we assume the same natural laws apply throughout time.
Pure category confusion, it seems to me.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Gosnell" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 04:58:47 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been burned at the
stake.
--
Regards,
Stan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Todd Ullum" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 05:54:13 PM |
|
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 11:21:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:54:13 GMT, "Todd Ullum" <tullum@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Speechless Huh?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 09:11:25 AM |
|
|
Stan Gosnell wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in news:1112206893.458870.193020
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Not really, except among cranks. The claim to the contrary was
only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it
all.
Prior to that, anyone who doubted publicly would have been burned at
the
stake.
Evidence? How many atheists died for their faith during the wars of
religion?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
