> Sorry another long one.

Well better "one" than "two."

> I don't agree with all of your points. They can
> be argued back and forth - and the position we
> come away from them with is based upon the
> position we came to them with.

That you agree with any though is interesting. I can't wait to read further.

> There are many scholars who have studied the
> available evidence and come to the conclusion
> that there is a case to be made, including many
> non-religious scholars and some who reluctantly
> became converts as a result of their
> investigations - such as:

Or so they say. I find these claims of original reluctance a bit disingenuous.

> 'Dr. Frank Morrison, a lawyer who had been
> brought up in a rationalistic environment, had
> come to hold the opinion that the resurrection
> of Jesus Christ was nothing but a fairy tale
> happy ending which spoiled the matchless story
> of Jesus. He felt that he owed it to himself and
> to others to write a book which would present
> the truth about Jesus, expose the
> misconceptions, and dispel forever the mythical
> story of the resurrection.'

Assuming he is telling the truth rather than, as an attorney, making the best case he can for his client. That is quite an assumption methinks. And one based upon no information one-way or the other.

> He ended by writing 'Who moved the stone? - The
> book that refused to be written'.

> There are many, many academics that have come to
> a similar conclusion, as there are many, many
> who would find the evidence lacking.

All of which conclusively proves nothing either way.

> I have noticed that a good number who attack the
> evidence seem to have a strong anti-Christian
> feel about them and I question their lack of
> bias - just as you would for those who state the
> evidence is compelling.

You may be right that some are anti-Christian but I rarely if ever see that in my colleagues. What I see is an strong bias against all forms of mental intoxication. We want to evidence that something is more substantive than an invisible purple rhinoceros or Harry Potter.

> So I am left standing in the middle and you
> rightly ask the question - 'But given they are
> scholars and you are not what standing does your
> opinion have?'

That is precisely where almost everyone is. And to have asked you that was a bit of a red herring as I have little respect for the opinions of self-annointed experts unless they earn that respect through cogent argument support by verifiable evidence. And more important than can they argue their case ... can they explain the supporting evidence for the other side's case too.

> Faith in Christ entails an experiential process
> that leads to conversion

Only because that is the expectation. You move to France the expectation is that you will learn to speak French and support the best interests of the country.

> and certainly contains an experiential element
> that sustains that faith after conversion.

Not to be demeaning here but so does LSD. And Timothy Leary was as much a "true believer" as any Christian.

My point being that personal experience is unworthy of being used in most cases. Certainly unworthy when discussing the origins of the universe. You have not experience Hogwarts ... but many have experienced 100 mics of acid. And there is nothing that makes your experience any more valid than theirs.

> ... you ask, ?How were the books of the bible
> chosen?? insinuating that this was an unreliable
> process, possibly corrupt and manipulative.

That was no insinuation. That was a statement of belief based on evidence having read accounts of how the decisions were made in Nicea and thereafter.

> A response is that God (as part of that process)
> ensured we have the texts that best help us get
> at the truth.

Seems to me you just shot to death your claim just a day ago that inconsistency is good. Even a high school student knows that if the point of the exercise is ""texts that help us get at the truth" a passing grade is not created by multiple conflicting accounts. Including the fact that Islam directly disputes one of the central tenants of the faith. Lets keep in mind that Islam looks extremely favorably on Jesus and his mother so they had no axe to grind.

> Of course it is self referential and you would
> deny this because you don?t accept God in the
> process.

I don't accept the invisible purple rhinoceros. What you are giving me here is warm, fuzzy, cuddly stuff. Where is anything verifiable? You can't create the entire universe and everything in it and leave as the sole evidence a text no one has ever seen. Even the framers of the US Declaration of Independence did better. Several hundred years later I can, and have, read the original. Where was the original text from Paul 200 years later? Where is there even evidence he could read and write?

> Here you are asserting that God could not be
> involved if eye witness accounts disagree

In a sense. What I am asserting is that if God had any hand in writing the documents they would be divinely inspired and therefore accurate, nay perfect. Imperfection is not a godly attribute.

> It can be answered that God is using humans to
> convey what He wants and He does it despite
> their inability to remember and agree on the
> minutia

This deserves a one word answer: Why?

Apply yourself to this simple question. Assume you are god for the moment. You have created everything and you wish to instruct your creations. What methodology would you choose? A method that would work or one that would fail? A method that would inevitably lead to errors in interpretation and judgement or a method that would be understood universally by those you created?

You are describing a god that is not just imperfect but a fool.

Agree with him or not I can guarantee you more people understand the message JFK was trying to get across when he said "I am a jelly donut" (in German). Even the Germans. Imagine yourself with the full powers and abilities of the god you imagine. You want to convey what message to the people that exist and all future generations? What is the message and how best to deliver it? I bet an authorless book, original text never found, repeatedly mistranslated by Popes and Kings would not be your choice. I'll bet multiple authors with different opinions of what happened wouldn't even be considered. And yet at the same time you claim this deity to be smarter than you are.

Well lets examine the success of this deity. He's made more Moslems than Christians. He has made more bloodshed than peace. He has made me to point out that this is all nonsense. And then we have the nasty fact that he also made smallpox which you seem to go to extraordinary lengths to ignore.

Just as any surgeon in any major hospital has saved more lives than Jesus Christ ... it is equally true that Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove have more accurately and forcefully delivered their messages. I don't like either the messages or the messengers ... but I get it: No questions asked.

> but if what we have helps us to arrive at a
> position of truth then it is sufficient.

If an inconsistent message has ever helped anyone arrive at truth please point out that example to me. This is getting remarkably close, once again, to finding the truth in a courtroom by trying to tell which of two attorneys is the better liar.

> Now you don?t think an all powerful God would
> work in that fashion, but I don?t see how you
> could constrain him one way or the other

You are correct I can't constrain him. But what I can do is point out that if this is his best attempt he is a dismal failure. That if this is teh best he can do in communicating with humans he is either a moron or a fool. I'd not try to constrain you if you decided to protest global warming by pouring gasoline on yourself and setting yourself ablaze. But I would consider you an idiot for doing so. Well in your case I'd likely go looking for a fire extinguisher so that statement isn't completely true ... but you get the point.

> Your questions about ?God allowing evil and
> suffering and creating disease and not giving us
> the cure?, on one hand points, within your
> framework, to an incoherent nonsense,

Not nonsense at all. If you have a sentient entity then it did it with intent and design and thus is cruel and malicious by definition.

> but in the Christian framework point to lack of
> understanding of the divine mind and what he is
> achieving in His creation.

I don't care what was in Hitler's mind when he ordered the gas chambers built. I know the result. I know not what was on the mind of Stalin when he murdered millions in Russia. I know the result. I do not need to know the mind of god to evaluate the result. A god that doesn't give a damn about results is a pretty poor god by any standard.

If you create smallpox you MUST accept responsibility for what it does. There is no shrugging of the shoulders allowed.

>God restoring eternal existence God knowing what
> he is achieving

I don't understand the first point but I do understand the second. Lets assume you are correct. That god knows what he is achieving with the creation of malaria. Please do recall he looked at his creation and was glad and satisfied. That included malaria didn't it? If the creator of the universe created smallpox and malaria but intent. Thinks they are good. And knows what is being achieved. Then what kind of monster is that god? If a human did it we'd haul them before the World Court in the Hague and the outcome would be a foregone conclusion.

> we are not able to understand his actions due to
> insufficient information

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. What you are asking here is for sentient beings to surrender all logic, all reason, all ability to render an opinion and just accept that something they do not understand and can not comprehend has some really good lovable reason for the painful murder of newborn children. Even you don't believe this. This argument came out of a book or pamphlet and you are quoting it or getting this nonsense from a third-party advisor. I know for a fact you don't believe it as you are not that mindless and not that capable of cruelty. I have the same feeling right now I had when I told Justine that if I wanted to talk to a parrot I'd buy one.

> and so your view that God is good is fallacious
> therefore He is nonsense and cannot exist.

Not my argument at all. My argument is that if one accepts your version of god one must accept a god that is cruel creating diseases and committing genocide. On the other hand if one looks for any verifiable evidence it can not be found.

Look at everything you have written. Not a single statement of verifiable fact. Lots of smoke and mirrors ... but no statements of verifiable fact including that you personally experienced something.

> The question in the end is, ?What evidence can
> we really have for the actions of an individual
> two thousand years ago that would satisfy us??

I disagree I really could care less about Jesus in the sense you raise him here. Did he live? Absolutely. Did he die? Absolutely though some may argue when and where. There are only two things that relate to the story ... (1) was Mary a virgin. You'll never know. (2) was he resserected? And again you'll find no verifiable evidence. There is no CNN video-tape reporting of either event. Take these two things away and you have nothing.

> I would say none even if the entire events could
> have been videoed we would suspect tampering
> and trickery.

True. Just as there are people that claim the moon landings were fake. But the situation here is different. The moon landings are believed by almost everyone on the planet. Those that claim otherwise are viewed as a few squirrels that ate a few too many nuts. The vast majority of the people on this planet do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. This screams incompetent messanger at best ... fraud at worst.

> One thing seems to be clear - God has left us
> all with the option to completely discount Him

A point of agreement between us. So I ask you to again to be objective. For what purpose would a messenger INTENTIONALLY deliver an ambiguous message? Have you ever in your life experience met someone delivering a message who didn't care whether you got it accurately?

You seem willing to forgive god incompetence? malice? A large number of all too human failings. Why? I thought he was supposed to forgive you.

Sum it all up. You have faith. Faith in what? And what does that faith get you? Are you only a good person because of fear of eternal punishment? No!
So your behavior is not related to that faith. Does the earth only spin on its axis because of that faith? No! Continue this ad nauseum. And apply Occam's Razor.

Whether your god exists or not nothing would be different except.

1. If everyone agreed there was no god the religious wars would stop.
2. If everyone agreed there was no god they would have to admit that when they act well or poorly they, and they alone, are solely responsible.
3. If everyone agreed that there was no god they could not excuse the suffering of the poor and ill because of some nonsense about how they are blessed.
4. If everyone agreed that there was no god the money spent building billion-dollar monuments to the clergy might be allocated to actually doing good work.

There are my four points. Give me your four points that show how anything on this planet is better for a faith-based belief system existing. Pointing out how the substance underlying the belief system makes it different from a belief in the invisible purple rhinoceros.


DA Morgan