George wrote:
>>>>You have not "explained" this many times but have simply made this assertion which bears little resemblance to reality. 1st, I again point out that you ignore the cross: I know you don't think that's important in this connection but I do & it's misleading for you to continue to imply that I emphasize the resurrection independently of the cross. This isn't the 1st time I've corrected you on that.
Then the claim of the resurrection of Jesus is one for which there is significant literary & historical support, as the work of critical scholars such as Pannenberg, O'Collins & Wright have shown. Of course this doesn't amount to scientific proof but it's simply false to suggest that there is no more reason to believe the resurrection of Jesus than there is for Adonis et al. (There is also little doubt that Jesus actually lived & a lot that Adonis did.) & it's at least equally misleading to say that the resurrection is not more "tangibly verifiable" than your might-have-been Genesis reconstructions.<<<<
Look, we are talking about evidence for design in the universe. The cross and the resurrection really can't come into play in thhis game. Sorry, you keep saying that it can but it is totally illogical to say that. Why? IF one believes the resurrection then one cansay that means the universe was designed. But one can't put out much evidence, as you acknowledge, for the historical fact of the resurrection. Thus, it can't be EVIDENCE for design. We can't find any of the original historical documents, we don't really know where the grave is, we can't really be sure that this isn't a similar case to that pulled off by Joseph Smith who got twelve guys to sign a statement that there were these golden tablets with reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs on them. Thus, your starting point is one of belief, not EVIDENCE.
And when you constantly state things like: "it's at least equally misleading to say that the resurrection is not more "tangibly verifiable" than your might-have-been Genesis reconstructions"
It shows that you really don't understand the point. It isn't relevant or even particularly important whether my reconstruction (a might have been or a has been) is true. The important point is that there MUST BE SOME PLACE of connection between religion and the tangible. You constantly miss this crucial point. Someone, somewhere, somehow must create a scenario which makes some sort of sence and some sort of touchstone with reality or Christianity is simply a religion for the utterly ignorant or the self-delusional.
So fire away at my reconstruction, it really doesnt matter if I am wrong. What does matter is that so far 20th century apologists have been grandly successful at divorcing the Scripture from any and all tangible reality, thus making Christianity imaginary.
Received on Wed May 25 00:05:53 2005