1/24/00
George wrote:
> This may seem like a tedious recounting of the obvious. The
point
>is that while we do not have "verifiable" physical data about Jesus of the
sort
>we have about the Chicxulub event, we do have evidence of the sort that
>historians usually have to be satisfied with and which in fact they
routinely
>use.
But with the flood we should have EXACTLY the physical evidence that we have
about the Chicxulub event. Yet you find my search for verification of that
event 'strange'. Yet inconsistently, you admit that we should have such data
for a physical event. The flood was a physical event. But when faced with
the falsification of the Mesopotamian flood view, Christians strangely
decide it is true in spite of the falsification.
& here you'll see the reason for my "sensitivity" to which you referred
>above, sensitivity which is not simply personal. If you think that the
"logic"
>of presenting the supportive evidence which I've sketched is equivalent to
that
>of claiming that the gospel accounts make Jesus' crucifixion "automatically
>true" & therefore reject it, then I have nothing further to say.
George, all I am asking for is evidence supporting your claim that we don't
have fideism and you can't seem to give it. We can have all the evidence
for Jesus' life, but that doesn't make him God. Agreed? So we can't verify
that and we must simply believe--fideism. But some events in Scripture are
capable of physical verification. Why is it that you find it very strange
that one would want to verify an account of a physical event spoken of in
the Bible in every respects similar to Chicxulub in its
verifiabilty/falsifiability? Especially given the need to simply believe the
rest of the theology? Only physical events can be verified. The wonderful
meaning to life and grand theology of Christianity which we say we have
can't be verified. So why not try to verify the physical events like the
Exodus or Flood?
> Of course the claims about the resurrection raise harder
questions.
>Let me know the extent to which you're with me so far and we'll see if it's
>worth proceeding further.
You don't need to be condescending. Carry on or don't as you see fit. You
are the one who started this thread. I declined to pursue this issue in that
first note you sent by saying I didn't want to have another round at this.
But then you sent the second note.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 13:37:12 EST