No need to "fire away," that's not my style. I was just preparing for what I usually get from others when I defend my faith.
Am I a fanatic? Perhaps. In reality I'm an apologist, one who has done the research and defends his viewpoint with hard evidence. I do my best not to attack the person, but defend my views and convince others. I always welcome an honest debate, provided the other is able and/or willing (as I hope you are)
I can't believe I'm letting myself waste time with this again, as I swore I never would when I got tired of beating my head against a brick wall when attempting to "debate" with those who don't know the difference between "hard" evidence and blind faith several years ago. But, as has always seemed to be the case, you bandy about terms like "hard evidence", then proceed to
produce nothing but obviously self-serving
subjective opinion in lieu of meaningful evidence, "hard" or "soft".
It was also "religious fanaticism" that brought out the American Revolution, the Abolitionist movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Great Awakening, etc. Horrible events in the history of mankind, to be sure.
I suppose all the people I've seen healed was just a delusion. right? My overcoming addiction was all me, not the supernatural healing performed by my Savior and Lord, right? The first hand reports of the miraculous as witnessed by my friends on the mission field was all lies to generate more funds, of course? The empty tomb is just a farce, huh?
Truly "hardcore" scientists and skeptics are still waiting for the
actual evidence to back these wild anecdotal claims. But if you actually have the long-awaited PROOF of any of these claims of "supernatural" or "miraculous" events (and mere "reports", whether first, second, third, or tenth hand, are not a subsititute for actual proof or "hard" evidence, as a "report" is merely a CLAIM, and a claim is NOT the equivalent of EVIDENCE, at best it's an
hypothesis), I and plenty of other scientifically-minded investigators would love to see it. I mean, who wouldn't
want to believe in miracles? However, we aren't all willing or able to believe only what we want to believe, but some of us feel compelled to believe what the REAL evidence shows us. As for your question of the "empty tomb", I'm not sure
what tomb you're referring to, but perhaps you'd like to clarify that as well as explaining exactly WHAT an "empty" tomb proves?
I am a man of science AND a man of faith, something that 'delusional men' like Sir Isaac Newton had no trouble with. Unlike the rest of my generation who all relied on men with the same first name of "Coach" to teach history to me in school, I studied it on my own. Archaeological evidence ever day is proving more and more the historical accuracy of the Bible. The period of time between the writing and record of the Ne Testament was within 8 years of the life of Christ. Physical proof of the writings of Aristotle are over 1000 years after his death, yet no one claims HIS writings are inaccurate. The only historical writings that come closer to the Bible in time between the event and the author is Homer's Illiaed (sp?), and the earliest exisiting physical writing of that post date Homer by app. 200-250 years, yet no one disputes if the Illiaed is Homer's writing!
First, you apparently don't realize that calling yourself both a man of science and a man of faith is a self-contradiction. That is, science is, first and foremost, a
method of examining evidence in order to establish "belief"; whereas "faith" is, by very definition, the acceptance of a belief in the absence of, or lack of, evidence. So you might not seem to appreciate how "schizoid" it might make you appear to claim to "be" both. Or at the least it suggests your wanting to "have it both ways."
Your statements about the "accuracy" of the bible are rather "fuzzy", as you haven't clearly explained what that means. Exactly WHAT is "accurate" in the bible and what does that have to do with the issue of religion in schools? I trust you're not suggesting that actual scientific archaeological textbooks be replaced by the Christian bible? Or
are you? But just in case you really are making such an extreme suggestion, athough I wouldn't think it should be necessary to point it out to you, assuming you've had any education at all, to the best of my knowledge the Christian bible contains no discussion whatsoever of the all-important
scientific method, the very "cornerstone" of what we call science -- not surprising since the latter wasn't even well-established until much more recently. But regardless, writings, of any sort, cannot and do not, in and of themselves, consititute "evidence" of real world facts.
If Christ was a farce, the ruling Jews and Romans would have just needed to show the tomb and the body. Why didn't they? HE WASN'T there. I could get into all the historical proofs, but this site doesn't have the time or space for all the evidence. I dare you to read "Evidence That Deserves a Verdict" or "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell, a former debunker as yourself.
Ah, so I guess this explains (sort of) your above reference to an "empty tomb". And nothing may show your lack of comprehension of, or appreciation of, the importance of meaningful
objective evidence more than your above statements. First, your ASSumption that "He" (i.e., the body?) "wasn't there", based on nothing more than the fact that the tomb wasn't shown. And secondly, your apparent implication that even if the body wasn't there (which you're only ASSuming in the frst place) that that would prove anything
other than that the body wasn't there. Period. Does that alone, in the mind of the "religionist", actually consitutute "evidence" of something
else? But in fact, if one is willing to heap ASSumption
upon ASSumption, in place of ACTUAL evidence (as opposed to inference or conjecture), it might be easy enough to believe almost anythng one wants to believe. A fact of which you might seem to constitute "living proof."
[Analogously, If I refused to let you dig up my late father's grave, would that similarly prove to you that my father didn't exist? Or, perhaps more to your point, that he had "miraculously arisen from the dead"? That's PRETTY wild "logic".]
I KNOW my God is real. I've seen Him in action. I have seen His mighty works displayed. You can come up with all the humanistic 'wisdom' you like, but it proves nothing when you have experienced God personally. I always find it interesting that all the humanists go out of their way to debunk Christianity, but they never go after Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. Why? Their arguments cannot stand the test of time.
First, it goes without saying that your claim of "knowing" that God is "real" (whatever that may actually mean), based on your
personal experience (as you've just admitted) is purely
subjective and hence consititues anything but
objective or
scientific evidence of
anything.
As for your CLAIM that the "humanists" "go out of their way" to debunk Christianity but "never go after" these other religions; first, suggesting, as you might seem to be implying, that anyone who disagrees with
your religious beliefs, or attempts to "debunk" them, is a "humanist" is just a statement of
your own belief, as many of those who don't buy the completely unsubstantiated wild claims of the relgious may apply no such label to themselves. But perhaps it makes it easier for you to attack your numerous opponents' points of view, simplifying things for yourself by "lumping" them all into a single category, similar to the way governments like to portray their military enemies as "inhuman" in order to help rally their citizenry (often largely Christian, and despite the biblical admonishment that "thou shalt not kill" -- but that's narrowly selective and doesn't apply to "the enemy" or to the animals we wish to eat, among others, does it?) to support their killing of them.
Secondly, I doubt that your statement that "they" only debunk Christianity is true. In fact, I cast doubt on ALL "extraordinary" (i.e., "supernatural", etc.) claims, religiously based or otherwise, which have no credible evidence to support them.
But if it seems to you that it's "only Christianity", that may likely be because of the fact that Christianity is far and away the most politically powerful religion in America, whose most "enthusiastic" (read "fanatic") proponents, such as yourself, seem to wish to force ther beliefs down the throats of the entire population, in any and every way possible, including, presumably, wanting children of any and all other faiths, or of no faith, in the public schools to be
required to hear about YOUR religion whether they or their parents like it or not.
But your being a "majority" religion in this country may well make it much easier for you to force your own religious beliefs upon the numerous minorities, which in fact has seemed to be the aim of a number of powerful and influential Christian groups, who clearly go out of their way to re-interpret the constitution to suit their own dubious purposes, among numerous other deceptive tactics, in the interest of this self-serving agenda.
Besides, I'm not religious. Religion is man trying to prove (or improve) himself to be God or a god. A Christian is one that is aware he/she is imperfect and sinful, and surrenders to Christ for forgiveness of sin. It is not man becoming a god, but God becoming a man to save us. A complete 180 degree difference in definition.
Let's see if I have this straight. You've just written a lengthy post defending YOUR religion and YOUR god (and is your god really so weak that he NEEDS your "defense"???) in attempting to justify the foisting of these upon the public at large...and yet you say you're NOT religious??? Now THAT's funny. But if defining the term to suit your own purpose "works" for you, I guess that shouldn't surprise me, as redefining terms to suit ones own purpose, and playing various other word games, in lieu of real facts or evidence, seems to be a well-established tactic of the highly vocal (and fanatical) "Christian coalition."
