Justin Welby

[truthpaste]

My prophecy came true then!...

I'm pretty confident that no-one who contributes to this debate will bother to read either of these as it will take some considerable time/effort and will instead probably take a short cut and read a summary critique by some well known atheist.

In the evidence for the Resurrection we should expect the likes of Fitzgerald and many others to try and discredit anyone who dares to suggest that history and science confirm what would be disasterous for the agnostic.

I note the response from one qualifed Doctor of Philosophy:-

People coming to read your article are told by Fitzgerald that Strobel is interviewing preachers, who have no expertise in New Testament history, and he provides the example of a person who has a PhD in the topic and who publishes in peer-reviewed New Testament journals! That is misleading. Utterly and objectively. But then this is Fitzgerald, the guy who routinely massacres classical history in his polemical books. He has a pretty long and substantiated record of playing loose with the facts in order to score an ideological point (e.g. his use and appeal to Seneca, Philo, Aramaic etc is just as troublesome). The phrase people in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks rather springs to mind.

[truthpaste]

Strobel addresses the attempts to discredit his research You can look up each individual from the information in the article linked below.

FULL ARTICLE (small section below)


Why did I choose these scholars to interview for the book after having thoroughly studied literature from atheists, skeptics, left-wing professors, and others? Because after assessing the wide range of scholarship, I concluded that the views of these scholars most closely cohered to the historical record. The experts I interviewed have PhDs from Cambridge, Brandeis, Princeton, Durham, USC, Purdue and other major institutions. Incidentally, in his online post the atheist sought to disparage one interviewee by saying he was merely a “Baptist pastor,” neglecting to mention that he has a doctorate in New Testament from the University of Aberdeen and is a widely published and respected professor at a major seminary.

My books report extensively on the evidence for Christianity. I conducted each interview as reported, tape recorded them, edited them to fit the space (as my books disclose), and even allowed each interviewee, whether skeptic or Christian, to review the finished chapter before publication to ensure I hadn’t accidentally introduced any errors in the editing process. I gave each of them free rein to correct anything that was not accurate.

Now, twenty years after The Case for Christ came out, along comes this Internet post with the provocative headline that I somehow “fabricated” my story. That is false, plain and simple. In fact, if you read the post carefully, you’ll see he never really disputes that I was a spiritual skeptic who came to faith through an investigation of the evidence. Rather, he uses innuendo, half-truths, inaccuracies and twisted facts in an unsuccessful attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of my books.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

My prophecy came true then!...

I'm pretty confident that no-one who contributes to this debate will bother to read either of these as it will take some considerable time/effort and will instead probably take a short cut and read a summary critique by some well known atheist.

Well first of all I watched the whole of the video that truthpaste linked to and I found it less than evidence per se. I also thought, and stated so on here, that his earlier hedonistic lifestyle being due to not being a Christian, was lacking in intellectual rigour. So rather than waste more time I looked him up on the net.
If I posted a link on here regarding what I would consider to be related to humanity's possibly most important figure, I would hope that such a link was not authored by someone who is less than authorititve and whose comments and professional integrity seem to be questioned.

I didn't state that Strobel's detractors were right and I simply stated that the comments concerened were interesting. However, they did seem to have a similarity or two in parts that I detected from the video but I don't hold up their comments as authorititve.

If I posted a link to a book on evolution I would understand if you read up on the author before committing to reading the book - and if it transpires that he also believed in fairies you may be a tad reticent to swallow his work whole.

By the way, using your own logic, have you ever read an authorititve book on evolution that has been revised this century? If so, which one and what flaws did you find in it?

[truthpaste]

Well first of all I watched the whole of the video that truthpaste linked to and I found it less than evidence per se. I also thought, and stated so on here, that his earlier hedonistic lifestyle being due to not being a Christian, was lacking in intellectual rigour. So rather than waste more time I looked him up on the net.
If I posted a link on here regarding what I would consider to be related to humanity's possibly most important figure, I would hope that such a link was not authored by someone who is less than authorititve and whose comments and professional integrity seem to be questioned.

I didn't state that Strobel's detractors were right and I simply stated that the comments concerened were interesting. However, they did seem to have a similarity or two in parts that I detected from the video but I don't hold up their comments as authorititve.

If I posted a link to a book on evolution I would understand if you read up on the author before committing to reading the book - and if it transpires that he also believed in fairies you may be a tad reticent to swallow his work whole.

By the way, using your own logic, have you ever read an authorititve book on evolution that has been revised this century? If so, which one and what flaws did you find in it?

Noted. So what type of evidence would convince you that Christ died, and was then seen alive after His death?

[Canton Kev]

Noted. So what type of evidence would convince you that Christ died, and was then seen alive after His death?

Grainy 12fps CCTV footage in black and white

[truthpaste]

By the way, using your own logic, have you ever read an authorititve book on evolution that has been revised this century? If so, which one and what flaws did you find in it?

While you are deliberating on the facts that would cause you to believe that Christ died and rose from the dead, I have started a new discussion re your question to allow this one to stay within a mile of the OP!

[Gofer Blue]

Strobel addresses the attempts to discredit his research You can look up each individual from the information in the article linked below.

FULL ARTICLE (small section below)

Thanks for the link. Very interesting and robust response from Strobel.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

While you are deliberating on the facts that would cause you to believe that Christ died and rose from the dead, I have started a new discussion re your question to allow this one to stay within a mile of the OP!

I have nothing to deliberate. I have never mentioned the claim on here either way. However, not surprisingly, I don't believe it happened but anyone who applies logic can't deny that some things definitely didn't happen. Similarly, I can't disprove that any claims that a goblin was in my garden last night or that I was herdsman in Bhutan in my last life. If convincing evidence supported any of those possibilities I would look into it - but your so-called evidence is nothing of the sort and is very often intellectually extremely weak. You are welcome to forget my take on things and concentrate on the billions of other people who don't believe the stories you do (including some churches local to me, whose preachers do not preach the Garden of Eden as being literal). Oh yeah, try the Jewish lobby before you move on to the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists et al.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting and robust response from Strobel.

Interesting - and it's fully acceptable to read refutations of anything, of course. Fair is fair.

My own comment about Strobel concerned the following quote which is bemusing to the majority of the population of the world who are not fundamental Christians:

“…I had a vested interest in the non-existence of God because I was living a rather immoral lifestyle and did not want to be held accountable for my behavior. To me, atheism opened up a world of hedonism that I knew wouldn’t be acceptable to God if he existed.”

The thought that we can have a licence to be immoral and hedonistic if we don't believe in the Christian god is rather a perverse notion for most people who can apply logic and empathy for one's fellow man. And on the other hand let's not forget that your god instructed the killings of people who didn't listen to priests, homosexuals, entire towns where some non-believers may have convinced some people to believe in a different god, non-virgins outside wedlock, people cursing their parents, non-believers and a lot else, including innocent women, children and babies.

[Gofer Blue]

Well first of all I watched the whole of the video that truthpaste linked to and I found it less than evidence per se. I also thought, and stated so on here, that his earlier hedonistic lifestyle being due to not being a Christian, was lacking in intellectual rigour. So rather than waste more time I looked him up on the net.
If I posted a link on here regarding what I would consider to be related to humanity's possibly most important figure, I would hope that such a link was not authored by someone who is less than authorititve and whose comments and professional integrity seem to be questioned.

I didn't state that Strobel's detractors were right and I simply stated that the comments concerened were interesting. However, they did seem to have a similarity or two in parts that I detected from the video but I don't hold up their comments as authorititve.

If I posted a link to a book on evolution I would understand if you read up on the author before committing to reading the book - and if it transpires that he also believed in fairies you may be a tad reticent to swallow his work whole.

By the way, using your own logic, have you ever read an authorititve book on evolution that has been revised this century? If so, which one and what flaws did you find in it?

I can appreciate your concern about this (your text highlighted in blue above), as the implication is that being an atheist leads to a hedonistic lifestyle. Whether we like it or not, that is Strobel's own stated position. I can identify to some extent with his situation. I come from a family whose ancestors were firmly rooted in Nonconformism (Methodism) from way back (late 1700's – the John Wesley era). My father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather were all strict teetotallers (they would never even enter a pub for example), non-smokers, and anti-gambling. My father was a teenager during the miners' strike and the Great Depression in the 1920's (his father was a miner) and he witnessed the effect of drunkenness on poor families first hand. So I suppose each person's definition of a hedonistic lifestyle would be quite different, depending on their upbringing. My father and grandfather would probably have been horrified when I took up drinking and smoking when I was at university – for them that would be a hedonistic lifestyle! When I became a Christian I gave up drinking and smoking, mainly because I did not want to be a bad example to my two lads later on (they were only about 2 – 3 years old at the time). Hence they could never say to me “it's OK for you drink/smoke but you won't allow me to” i.e. do as I say, not do as I do!

Re: books on evolution. The most recent books on evolution that I have read are all the classic Dawkins's publications: The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene and the God Delusion. I admit these are now quite old but still form the basic argument for the evolutionary process I think? I would have happily lapped up all this stuff during my A level days, when DNA and the famous Stanley Miller experiment seemed to be the answer to everything, and I soon gave up the notion of a creator God. However later on I came to realise that whilst the idea of a primitive life form evolving over millennia into the complex life forms we see today is an enticing one, and Dawkins's ingenious/persuasive theory seems to fit the bill, it has a fundamental and fatal flaw; and that is even the simplest imaginable organism such as a bacterial cell is HUGELY complicated and could not possibly have arisen by chance from a primordial soup.

As much as I have rejected Dawkins's theory I have never attempted to dig up any dirt on him or try to denigrate his character as has been done by some to Strobel. He is clearly a brilliant intellectual – it's just a pity in a way that he has become such an aggressive atheist, which I believe has even caused some embarrassment to his fellow atheists.

[Gofer Blue]

I've just seen that TP has started a thread an evolution - fair enough I suppose as this is supposedly a thread about Welsby! If you (TBG) intend to reply to my reply, maybe switch to the latest thread?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I've just seen that TP has started a thread an evolution - fair enough I suppose as this is supposedly a thread about Welsby! If you (TBG) intend to reply to my reply, maybe switch to the latest thread?

I'lll leave it here re: Strobel, Gofer. I found Strobel's way of thinking regarding morality as very perverse and you stated that you apprciated why I effectively made the original comments on that score.

And I'll knock it on the head regarding your comment about complex life being unable to develop from primitive beginnings too. That viewpoint doesn't actually have any logical basis and bemusing when you believe in talking animals etc.

I'll sign off here.

[truthpaste]

I'lll leave it here re: Strobel, Gofer. I found Strobel's way of thinking regarding morality as very perverse and you stated that you apprciated why I effectively made the original comments on that score.

And I'll knock it on the head regarding your comment about complex life being unable to develop from primitive beginnings too. That viewpoint doesn't actually have any logical basis and bemusing when you believe in talking animals etc.
I'll sign off here.

On this issue I would also run for the hills in your position.

This cannot be solved > "complex life being unable to develop from primitive beginnings".........hence 'evilution' is exposed for what it is, one of the biggest global lies of recent history.

[jon1959]

On this issue I would also run for the hills in your position.

This cannot be solved > "complex life being unable to develop from primitive beginnings".........hence 'evilution' is exposed for what it is, one of the biggest global lies of recent history.

Tetchy today! Trouble in the cult?

[truthpaste]

Tetchy today! Trouble in the cult?

Loads of trouble in the evolution cult, correct.
Even Jesus said about liars - "You brood of vipers!" (Matthew 12:34) when highlighting deceit.

So yes I hate deception with a passion.

[jon1959]

Loads of trouble in the evolution cult, correct.
Even Jesus said about liars - "You brood of vipers!" (Matthew 12:34) when highlighting deceit.

So yes I hate deception with a passion.

Clearly not.

[goats]

Tetchy today! Trouble in the cult?

Rough day on Queen street….

[truthpaste]

Rough day on Queen street….

I'm not the yelling type, more the discussion sort; and you'd be very surprised how many people walk up and want to have a serious chat.

[Gofer Blue]

I'lll leave it here re: Strobel, Gofer. I found Strobel's way of thinking regarding morality as very perverse and you stated that you apprciated why I effectively made the original comments on that score.

And I'll knock it on the head regarding your comment about complex life being unable to develop from primitive beginnings too. That viewpoint doesn't actually have any logical basis and bemusing when you believe in talking animals etc.

I'll sign off here.

OK, you want to duck out at this point, fair enough. Please note for the record though I didn't say that! Read again what I wrote. I said I believe that it is impossible for what we tend to think of as a "simple" single-celled organism such as a bacterium (a prokaryote) to arise from a soup of chemicals such as amino acids and mineerals, or even more so a eukaryote, such as a “simple” single-celled algae!
These are very complicated biological machines with umpteen processes occuring simultaneously - check out kinesins and tell me these arose by chance. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in a creator.

[goats]

I'm not the yelling type, more the discussion sort; and you'd be very surprised how many people walk up and want to have a serious chat.

It’s good that people will approach the unhinged and deluded in town to check they are ok….

[goats]

OK, you want to duck out at this point, fair enough. Please note for the record though I didn't say that! Read again what I wrote. I said I believe that it is impossible for what we tend to think of as a "simple" single-celled organism such as a bacterium (a prokaryote) to arise from a soup of chemicals such as amino acids and mineerals, or even more so a eukaryote, such as a “simple” single-celled algae!
These are very complicated biological machines with umpteen processes occuring simultaneously - check out kinesins and tell me these arose by chance. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in a creator.

I always did wonder where Adam and Eve came from? God just dropped them off one day when passing wasn’t it?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

OK, you want to duck out at this point, fair enough. Please note for the record though I didn't say that! Read again what I wrote. I said I believe that it is impossible for what we tend to think of as a "simple" single-celled organism such as a bacterium (a prokaryote) to arise from a soup of chemicals such as amino acids and mineerals, or even more so a eukaryote, such as a “simple” single-celled algae!
These are very complicated biological machines with umpteen processes occuring simultaneously - check out kinesins and tell me these arose by chance. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in a creator.

Apologies if I misunderstood or misrepresented your point but I'll leave it there anyway.

[truthpaste]

I always did wonder where Adam and Eve came from? God just dropped them off one day when passing wasn’t it?

This may get your goat - "Scientists reveal all the evidence that Adam & Eve really did exist"

They move a little closer as time goes by

[jon1959]

This may get your goat - "Scientists reveal all the evidence that Adam & Eve really did exist"

They move a little closer as time goes by

Interesting piece. You should read it!

It rubbishes the idea that humanity began with two people: Adam and Eve.

It makes clear that modern humans' first ancestors were part of a wider evolved population pool of homo sapiens which is quite different from tracing a survivor lineage back to a single woman.

It plays around with 'spot the Eden' but makes clear this is not 'the cradle of humanity' but is the place where Neolithic farming first began - which fits with most other scholarship in paleoanthropology for well over 50 years. The 'birthplace of civilisation' is not the birthplace of humanity!

It also warns people with a literal belief in all the words of the Bible, that this story of human origin (genetic and cultural) is mainly incompatible with Biblical fundamentalism:

"However, making the Bible fit with modern science requires throwing out a lot of the traditional story.

"That could mean saying goodbye to the notion that God created Adam and Eve, or even questioning whether our biblical ancestors were Homo Sapiens."

Not enough there on Neanderthals or Homo Erectus, though. They really drive a cart and horses through the creation myths!

[stevo]

Wrong thread. There's a separate one for evolution.