tim@unc.UUCP (05/25/83)
Before the main feature, there will be a short featured response. The paragraph following is from an article by Larry Bickford. When quotes appear, it is Larry quoting an article of mine. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not frightened of judgment by your God, Larry. Listen to yourself. "Don' yo be sayin' t'ings like dat! De Massa gwine be pow'ful angry! We'se jus' slaves, and dat's all we ever be." You are proving every statement I made. And now, our feature presentation. Larry challenges us as follows: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The concept of "the burden of proof" is a very old one. It applies to all civilized discourse. It could be stated as follows: "The burden of proof is on the claimant." In our judicial system, it is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", since the claimant is the plaintiff in this case. Basically, what it says is that the person who claims something happened is obligated to prove that it did in fact happen, but the person who disbelieves is obligated only to counter the evidence of the claimant, not to disprove the occurence. I trust the reason for this is clear to all, particularly from the judicial example. Otherwise, we would have to believe every loony that came down the pike, unless his claims could be 100% disproved. "I just saw a mouse pick up an owl and fly back to a hole in the clouds." "What do you think, Eb?" "Well, I cain't prove he ain't right, so I reckon we'll have to change the schoolbooks a tad..." Now, it is obvious who the claimant is in this case of the Resurrection of Christ. It is Larry. So who does the burden of proof rest on? And here is his evidence: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we know Christ was dead? Certainly this is a good possibility. His ordeal was extreme. But how do we KNOW it? Guards can be bribed -- in fact, Christians like to talk about how corrupt the Romans were. A crucifixion normally took several days. Christ was cut down after just a few hours. Yogis have been observed lowering their basic metabolic rate to amazing degrees, ignoring pain, and stopping bleeding. Christ might have been able to do the same, and this "miracle" is certainly easier to believe in than resurrection. The possibility that Christ was playing possum cannot be gotten around. Larry goes on: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Five hundred people is five hundred people. One person claiming something about five hundred people is one person. I recommend you avoid law school, Larry. You'd be eaten alive. (By the way, what is "an event occurring in time and space"? Is there another kind that people are eyewitnesses to in courts of law?) People are still refusing to admit that the Bible supporting itself doesn't demonstrate anything. A consistent statement need not be a true one. Buddhists claim that the Buddha was frequently observed in miraculous doings, and they claim huge crowds shared these observations. But it is still only the Buddhists saying it, and they obviously have a vested interest. I believe in treating different cases equally (some of you may recognize this as a thing little seen, "justice"), and thus the same attitude must be used when evaluating the claims of Christians, Buddhists, Moslems, witches, etc. Tim Maroney
klick@ihuxu.UUCP (05/28/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Posting-Version:version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxu.UUCP Message-ID:<172@ihuxu.UUCP> Date:Fri, 27-May-83 17:02:46 EDT Organization:BTL Naperville, Il. Tim Maroney cites the "innocent until proven guilty" judicial concept as justification for placing the burden of proof (of the Resurrection) on Christians. He makes it appear that this judicial concept is a very old one. Consider that in the country from which we derived much of our legal system, Great Britain, the judicial position is *still* "guilty until proven innocent"! By historical precedent, then, the non-believers have the burden of refuting the Resurrection. Vickie Klick BTL - ihuxu!klick
bch@unc.UUCP (05/28/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Message-ID:<5290@unc.UUCP> Date:Sat, 28-May-83 02:27:30 EDT While I don't feel qualified to speak for Tim Maroney, I think that Vickie Klick has taken an exemplar rather than the thrust of Tim's argument. The point was that the burden of proof is on the claimant, the one who claims that an event has taken place. I will prove to you that the Resurrection did not take place if you prove to me that I am not holding a grue in my left hand.
debray@sbcs.UUCP (05/28/83)
Vickie Klick (ihuxu!klick), responding to an article by Tim Maroney, says: `` Tim Maroney cites the "innocent until proven guilty" judicial concept as justification for placing the burden of proof (of the Resurrection) on Christians. He makes it appear that this judicial concept is a very old one. Consider that in the country from which we derived much of our legal system, Great Britain, the judicial position is *still* "guilty until proven innocent"! By historical precedent, then, the non-believers have the burden of refuting the Resurrection. '' Come on, Vickie! I agree that *much* of the American legal system was derived from the British; that's not to say that *all* of it was. The significance of G.B.'s judicial position being one of "guilty until proven innocent" isn't, therefore, clear. It doesn't in any way invalidate Tim's argument. If, as you say, we ought to go by historical precedent, then surely we should believe that the earth is flat as well? And that <what's now called America> doesn't exist? What's important here is not any historical precedence, but a basic philosophical principle called "Occam's Razor" (or, the Principle of Parsimony), which says, in essence, that something should be believed only if there's good, solid evidence for it. That, of course, requires the claimant to prove any claim he makes. Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook ... philabs!sbcs!debray
tjt@masscomp.UUCP (05/29/83)
Tim Maroney cites the "innocent until proven guilty"
judicial concept as justification for placing the burden
of proof (of the Resurrection) on Christians. He makes
it appear that this judicial concept is a very old one.
Consider that in the country from which we derived much
of our legal system, Great Britain, the judicial position
is *still* "guilty until proven innocent"! By historical
precedent, then, the non-believers have the burden of
refuting the Resurrection.
Vickie Klick
BTL - ihuxu!klick
If you seriously claim that the burden of proof should always fall on
non-believers, how about refuting the claims of Buddhism, Hinduism,
Shinto, .... Of course, if you consider belief in Christianity to be
sufficient refutation of these claims then in fairness, you ought to
also consider belief in atheism sufficient refutation of Christian
claims.
Tom Teixeira
...!decvax!genrad!masscomp!tjt
sjk@sri-unix.UUCP (06/04/83)
Now, just "what-if" the resurrection of Christ didn't really occur?
I fail to see the significance that this event has other than to
instill hope in those who accept it in the canonical form. What is
hope anyway? Well, it's a fascinating projection device used to keep
people from the present by promising a future that doesn't exist!
Christianity in general provides all sorts of nifty hooks for clinging
to the past or hoping for the future; "Christ did this", "Christ
promised that". Fine! But let's LIVE in the PRESENT, otherwise
we're victims of the "divine illusion".
I'd love to hear (publically or privately) why those of you who've
accepted Christ did so. Serious contemplation on this question can
often be revealing. I was once so humbled as to have been told
"when you believed in Christ you believed for the wrong reasons"
and you know, by God, he was right! How many of us have been
guilt-tripped into our belief systems? You'd be surprised!
Something I've been wondering about is the existence of "thought-forms"
of Christ which disguise themselves as the essence of Christ. The
majority of faith-healers and other such "miracle" workers appear to
be channels for these thought forms and are not in communion with the
living Christ. Those who claim to know Christ surely must know the
difference ("test the spirits ..."), tho' I don't think many do.
What's all the fuss about a purpose for life? Again, this distracts
from the present and is a clever trap. Culture is the parent of
this goal-oriented, gotta-live-for-something mentality. Religions
are also by-products of culture, think twice before you deny this.
If there's interest, I'd like to see more discussion concerning death.
Is it not the concept of death most fear rather than death itself?
Lastly, a few words on religion in schools. It was mentioned that
in the classic separation of church and state that schools are of
"state" (I don't know the actual legalities involved). It's yet
another example of fragmented minds trying to put all the pieces
where they belong. I find it both sad and laughable.
Joy to All!
scott kramer <sjk@ucbvax, ucbvax!sjk>