cbostrum@watdaisy.UUCP (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) (05/26/83)
From Larry Bickford:
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!
...Quit sidestepping the central issue.
One Response, REissued:
I myself recall having submitted at least one article (in response to Ralph
Ris, however) on the sheer ludicrosity of believing that there is any sort of
serious evidence for the historical veracity of the "resurrection". Thus the
amazing pomposity and arrogance of the above submission I find most offensive.
The basic reply to it is obvious.
Paul reports there were 500 eyewitnesses? Big deal! Paul was an apologist,
not exactly an unbiased reporter. How about secular historians? Did any of
*them* report any witnesses, even of the crucifiction? Not only that, but Paul
himself didnt witness the event. How did he know that there were 500 witnesses?
Why, for heavens sake, should we believe what he says about this?
You argue as though the description presented in the bible were fact. How do
you know this? Given the amazing claims there, similar to those occuring in
other religions and fairy tale, isnt it more sensible to believe that they are
just story, more or less? (Unless, of course, you have some independent reason
to believe otherwise, which apparently you dont, since your argument seems to
hinge on this whole "bible as history" nonsense).
I am really getting sick of this "evidence that demands a verdict" CRAP.
The childish lack of sophistication in the whole argument,
coupled with an amazing degree of arrogance and will to believe,
is together all at once saddening, frustrating, irritating, and damn scary.
Calvin Ostrum, Dept Computer Science, University of Waterloo
...{decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watdaisy!cbostrumnixon@utcsrgv.UUCP (Brian Nixon) (05/27/83)
Just a thought on the idea that one could not take Biblical personalities as witnesses. If we take this idea to its conclusion, then... - Canadians could not report on Canadian events, - Americans could not report on American events, - Computer scientists could not write about computer science, - Net-news users could not write about net-news. Brian Nixon.