He has been dealing with a new 'case for christ' book lately--- Yesturday and today have been interesting...

Today's transcript isn't up yet (although I would like to include it here), but the 19th's is.

What do you guys think? (other than that he is a jerk?) I hadn't heard of a couple of these...

thanks

Is Chuch Colson a jerk because he is a Christian? Are all Christians jerks? Or were you personally offended by Watergate?

Which ones had you not heard before? What are your thoughts on those points?

Well, I have to admit, I have no idea where jess came up with the claim that Colson or Strobel is a jerk from the column... there's a link to another article that sounds like it may be the second in the series as well. The only impression I got is that Strobel wasn't particularly thorough, and asked people with obvious biases for the "evidence." Colson just sounds like he's reading bits of Strobel's book and sticking his "seal of approval" on them.

I said the 'other than he is a jerk' because the last time I brought up something Colson said, that was the sum and total of about half the responses.

I may agree, but I wanted to hear about his arguements, not his jerkiness...

I think I want to read Strobel's book... but I am sure there will be a good critical review of it soon somewhere on the net...

Do we have names? Who were these people who converted after Jesus' death? What does Chuck mean by 'most ardent supporters?' This is not what I was taught, and I want to hear what people more knowledgeable than I know...

and...

I never heard this one before, at all. Any basis int truth? I would think 10,000 converts in 5 weeks is 'miraculous' and would have been public knowledge then and now...


(his last point, the fact that every one of Jesus? disciples was willing to suffer and die for his beliefs. always makes me laugh... Early Mormons also were martyred... would they have died if it were a lie?)

Is that better? seriously, I want to know (I was rushed on my way out when I posted last, and I didn't want to lose any of it, so I claim haste)

(NSIMC)

He's a jerk for several reasons. One readily available reason is because he uses painfully stupid material like this:




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 20, 2001).]

Do you know how many converts there were in the Great Awakening period in England? I think Billy Graham has probably had altar calls that neared that, or even exceeded the number... certainly not something that a non-Christian audience is generally interested in. I *think Tacitus (don't want to dig into anything for a small point)refers to the increase of Christianity (as a Jewish sect) but I doubt any historian of the time is much interested in the religious opinions of a minority group(Jews) during their religious feasts. Not unless it has any effect on them.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> (his last point, the fact that every one of Jesus? disciples was willing to suffer and die for his beliefs. always makes me laugh... Early Mormons also were martyred... would they have died if it were a lie?)

The simple point of the matter is that the 12 apostles at least(and Paul, also having 'witnessed' the resurrected Christ in a vision) would have known that what they were saying was a lie if they claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. At least we would expect one of them to *doubt* afterwords, in case it had been a mass hallucination(which is a rather dubious explanation-especially one that is never renounced). People who die for believing in something better will come after their deaths are different than those who died testifying to something that they would positively know as fact(or know was not a fact). People usually die only for a lie, if they don't know it's a lie- which would not be true in the case of the witnesses(martyr=witness) of Christ.

Colson also uses his personal experience in conspiracies(and how they fail) as evidence that the story of Christ is true- if it had been a deception, it would have been uncovered as such by one of the conspirators at some point(especially if doing so could save your own hide.)

That's funny. In the gospels, Christ allegedly appeared to the disciples after resurrection and they:

(a) didn't believe it was him (even after 3 years of wandering the Judaean hillsides with him); and

(b) didn't recognize him (in spite of seeing him daily for 3 years); and

(c) wanted him to prove that he was real - let me touch you; eat some fish and some honeycomb and I'll believe in you

Now if Thomas, who taught with Christ and lived with him for 3 years could be that skeptical, then I guess the rest of us are excused. In fact, I would like to have the same quality of evidence that Thomas received.

Ah me. But there is still more.

Your simplistic explanation also does not address the problem that we do not have testimony from 12 apostles. Where are their books? Where are their claims?

Not to mention the problems with:
(a) mass hallucination, similar to the appearances of the Virgin, etc; or

(b) the general unreliability of human memory, even eyewitness memory - John Hockenberry did an NBC special on this very problem a few days ago. An actor, posing as a thief, barged into a class of law students and stole the professor's handbag. This class had just finished a series of lectures on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in courtroom trials. In spite of the fact that
(1) they had just learned the problems with such testimony and
(2) they were law students, trained to pay attention to details, a surprising number of them still mis-identified the thief and were subject to suggestive details interjected by the professor.


1. Why would you expect that a renunciation would survive over the years?

2. What evidence do you have that mass hallucination was never renounced? As theists are fond of saying: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Sorry; this is just a poorly re-worded version of Pascal's wager. Which is a bogus christian "test" that has been refuted 32 different ways already.

Here is a sympathetic view of Colson:

http://www.baptist.org/Baptists&News/Colson_010.htm

Colson is a jerk, though certainly not a complete one. He seems to have invented the lie that Cassie Bernall was reading her Bible in the library before she was shot.

Michael

Bull-o-knee it was. This is 'wouldn't die for a lie' (get your E-Z Step Xian Apologetic Arguments straight! ) It states that the disciples died for their faith(which was based on a faith that they had seen Jesus risen again, all together in one place)- it has nothing to do with YOU the skeptic(like P's wager has to do) but has everything to do with the apostolic martyrdom. Assuming they did die (en masse or not) for their faith, and as bad a faith as being crucified upside down like St. Peter, they had better be certain they really had seen Jesus. This has nothing to do with whatever you believe or not(like P's wager.) What the 'wouldn't die for a lie' argument at least refutes is that Christianity was invented for the benefit of it's proponents(materially) like the televangelist who fleeces the flock to get a Rolls. Their belief was founded on someone they had seen, and touched.(IJohn1:1) And Jesus' unbelieving brother James became a follower after the 'supposed' resurrection. (along with the 'turned around' lives of the disciples who went from those who had given up on Jesus into those who proclaimed his name to the uttermost ends. Who in the world would think their own brother was sinless and the glory of God? (especially only after this brother dies a death of disgrace)

As for Thomas, the message there is more about the grace of God towards the doubting sinner(Thomas). "Blessed(happy) are those who have not seen yet believe."



[This message has been edited by a_theistnotatheist (edited April 22, 2001).]