lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (05/24/83)
A couple of brief replies, then on to a challenge which has been issued and
re-issued with no one daring to touch.
To Dave Wright: "I'd like to see an end to a small but vocal Christian minority
out there trying to ram their religions down the throats of American school-
children." Reply: I'd like to see an end to the use of humanism (it IS a
religion) as the basis of educational, judicial, and other decisions.
To Don Ellis and Dave: "Public" schools should be an extension of the home, not
the state. Too many parents have abdicated their responsibilities and treated
the school essentially as a baby-sitter. They are reaping what they have sown.
To Tim Maroney: "I don't intend to let any slave-master ... supercede my will
for my life." Remember those words at the Judgment. "The 'not mine but thine'
bit is the utterance of a slave who desires no freedom." Read Romans 6 to find
out who has real freedom. "Humans are not so unworthy to choose for ourselves
as you portray us." History indicates otherwise.
To Chuck: Regarding the idea the only those "in terminal need of something to
hang onto" turn to Christ, how many counter-examples would you like? Perhaps J.
McDowell, who was far from being strung out; he accepted Jesus when he saw the
evidence that demanded a verdict. (Hey, *he* opened the door ...)
Every other week for about two months now, I have asked publicly for anyone who
can refute the Resurrection. NOT ONE RESPONSE! All the things Jesus and His
followers said and did is NOTHING without the Resurrection. STILL NO RESPONSE!
You want something to separate Christianity from everything else? Here it is!
Most religions base themselves on untestable claims. Christianity stands or
falls on a HISTORICAL event, one that occurred in known time and space, one
that can be tested -- the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
And I mean DEAD dead - no operating-table resuscitation. He was executed, a
spear was poked far enough into him to cause blood to pour out, He was wrapped
in cloths saturated with 100 pounds of ointment (effectively forming a body
case), a huge stone (check the Greek) was rolled against the mouth of the tomb,
a Roman guard guarded it to make sure the body wasn't stolen (did you get my
mail, Hutch?) -- and He was later seen alive, walking, and talking!
Paul reports that there were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ.
In a court of law, 500 eyewitnesses to an event occurring in time and space
makes a solid case. And remember, Paul was writing this (I Corinthians 15) to
people who were saying there was no resurrection. The evidence he provided for
those skeptics is still valid today. If you don't accept it, it isn't because
the evidence is biased - it's because YOU are.
Quit sidestepping the central issue. Either disprove the Resurrection in the
face of the evidence, or prepare yourselves for Acts 17:30,31 :
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men
everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will
JUDGE the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he
hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD."
Tired of the smokescreens,
Larry Bickford
{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!labrlr@pyuxjj.UUCP (05/25/83)
re: Larry Bickford's article 1. Saying that there were 500 witnesses is called hearsay testimony and as such is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. And with good reason. 2. Your talk of "who is truly free" sounds like the axiom "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY" from Orwell's 1984. Perhaps you think that god as Big Brother is O.K. I refuse to accept such nonsense. Even if it were so, that god's will was to be obeyed like that of Big Brother, all people with a shred of human dignity left (human dignity stripped from people by both Big Brother and western religionists) would not accept this. If this is your idea of the end of civilization, it is our idea of its true beginning. (I hardly think that the tortures people have endured over the centuries at the hands of religionists qualifies as civilization.) When you say "history proves otherwise" with regard to humanity making its own choices, you must be referring to the choice made by people to accept the indignities of religion. 3. I offer you a similar challenge to your own. Prove to me that Ubizmo, the god of shoe-polish and wax museums, does not exist.... I'm waiting... Now do you see the reason why no one replied to your challenge to disprove the resurrection. Even if I had a written document dated 8000 years ago written by Ubizmina, high priestess of the ancient Ubizminian religion, saying that she saw Ubizmo turn a frog into a Chevrolet, why should I (or you) believe that? Interesting that you don't believe Greek/Roman accounts of their gods, but you place absolute faith in other accounts. Sort of arbitrary, no? Unless you have evidence beyond the printed word....
ddw@cornell.UUCP (05/29/83)
Ah, good ol' Larry Bickford. What would we do without him and his ilk to
remind us of what we're opposing?
To Dave Wright: "I'd like to see an end to a small but vocal Christian
minority out there trying to ram their religions down the throats of
American school-children." Reply: I'd like to see an end to the use of
humanism (it IS a religion) as the basis of educational, judicial, and
other decisions.
Yeah, I'm sure you would. And just what would you like to see used as a basis
for these decisions? Why, I'll bet it's the Bible! So much for the separation
of church and state. One of the biggest problems one runs into in dealing with
people of Bickford's stripe is that they don't \think/ they're right, they
\know/ they're right. This makes it easy to disregard any reasons why we
should maybe not have Christianity ensconsed as a \de facto/ state religion.
Raising this non-existent issue of "humanism" is a favorite tactic of people
like Larry. It's a real pain, too, since they can immediately start claiming
that anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular brand of religion is
really a humanist and is thus introducing his own religion into the schools.
Even claiming that you don't know anything about humanism and don't subscribe
to its creed doesn't slow them down, since they can just claim that you picked
it up by osmosis in our godless schools. Sigh.
To Don Ellis and Dave: "Public" schools should be an extension of the
home, not the state. Too many parents have abdicated their responsibilities
and treated the school essentially as a baby-sitter. They are reaping what
they have sown.
This sounds good, but what exactly does it mean? An extension of the home?
Whose home? Mine? Yours? The mythical "average American?" If parents are
dropping responsibilities (which ones?) then should the schools stand idly
by, or try to do something to remedy the situation? And "reaping what they
have sown?" What does this mean? Come on, Larry, you can do better than
this. Or can you?
(Sorry for the delay on this note, but I've been out of town.)
David Wright
{vax135|decvax|purdue}!cornell!ddw
ddw.cornell@Udel-relay
ddw@cornellmam@rabbit.UUCP (06/04/83)
What is a strict definition of humanism and naturalism. I missed the beginning of this news group. Thanks, Meredith Morris
dje@5941ux.UUCP (06/06/83)
Larry Bickford has issued a challenge for anybody to refute the Resurrection.
Not bloody likely that this challenge will have many takers. On the other
hand, it would be equally difficult to prove that there was in fact a
Resurrection as described in the Christian Scriptures. "It is written" is
not proof!
The whole matter in question is a matter of faith, no more, no less. Not of
proof or refutation, but of Christian faith.
Dave Ellis / Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ
...!{ariel,lime}!houti!hogpc!houxm!5941ux!dje