Christ is for Christians

@pb1022 said
I think the miracles that Jesus Christ performed are mentioned in non-Biblical writings. I’ll look into the sources and get back to you.

I didn’t accept the Resurrection of Jesus Christ uncritically but looked into it for several months before concluding it was true - as atheists and experts in evaluating evidence have also done.

I don’t believe anything’s a conspiracy. ...[text shortened]... possible.

If you’d open your mind and do your own research, you might be surprised what you find.

Again you, with the very definition of a closed-mind, have the audacity to tell me I'm closed-minded! I'd be insulted if I had any respect at all for your opinion.

@avalanchethecat said
Again you, with the very definition of a closed-mind, have the audacity to tell me I'm closed-minded! I'd be insulted if I had any respect at all for your opinion.

I’m not closed-minded at all.

I looked into whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was true and concluded it was - just as atheists and experts in evaluating evidence have also done.

And I looked into whether the theory of evolution is true and concluded, as many scientists have, that it’s not.

You can’t cite a single shred of evidence for macroevolution. That oughta make you wonder why.

Why don’t you read “Giving Up Darwin” by David Gelernter? When you get done with that, I’ve got a bunch of other articles you can read that expose the theory of evolution for the fraud that it is - all based on science and none written by creationists.

Sadly, I don’t think you’re interested. Your mind’s made up - and it’s closed.

@pb1022 said
I’m not closed-minded at all.

I looked into whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was true and concluded it was - just as atheists and experts in evaluating evidence have also done.

And I looked into whether the theory of evolution is true and concluded, as many scientists have, that it’s not.

You can’t cite a single shred of evidence for macroevolution. That ought ...[text shortened]... n by creationists.

Sadly, I don’t think you’re interested. Your mind’s made up - and it’s closed.

If you are 'faithful' to your religion, you are OF COURSE closed-minded. You're not an idiot, so obviously you understand this, I really don't understand why you deny it. The 'evidence' you keep talking about which these alleged atheists 'evaluated' was obviously nothing more than scripture - you'd have mentioned it if you had anything else - so it's pretty obvious that they were either entirely uneducated or were not actually atheists in the first place. Do you actually have any non-scriptural evidence? No? Oh you do surprise me. You're talking utter tosh in
claiming that 'many scientists' have looked into the theory evolution and concluded it's untrue. That's just nonsense. It's simply not possible to rationally and honestly disregard the vast corpus of evidence supporting evolution. You keep wittering on about Darwin as though science ended with the publication of his work. It didn't. Darwin's views on evolution are an invaluable insight, but your ignorant insistence that his views are the entire story show quite clearly that you have not actually studied evolution in any depth whatsoever. You keep claiming, falsely, that I can't cite a 'single shred' of evidence in support of 'macroevolution'. This is simply a lie. I have given you plenty. There are countless thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers and texts which all support this scientific theory. Do you even know what a scientific theory is? What the basic requirements are for a hypothesis to be accepted as such? Clearly not. Instead you blather on about the masses of 'evidence' you have for the nonsensical magical tales in your bronze-age story book, when in fact of course you have none, just your closed-minded faith. David Gelernter's academic background is in computer programming. He's a hack, and also, I note, a denier of anthropogenic climate change. And, surprise surprise, a religious zealot. So no, I won't read his silly book, I'll stick with people who know what they're talking about. You should try doing that.

@avalanchethecat said
If you are 'faithful' to your religion, you are OF COURSE closed-minded. You're not an idiot, so obviously you understand this, I really don't understand why you deny it. The 'evidence' you keep talking about which these alleged atheists 'evaluated' was obviously nothing more than scripture - you'd have mentioned it if you had anything else - so it's pretty obvious th ...[text shortened]... s silly book, I'll stick with people who know what they're talking about. You should try doing that.

<<so it's pretty obvious that they were either entirely uneducated or were not actually atheists in the first place.>>

I think I posted this at least twice before. Maybe the third time will be the charm and you’ll actually read it.

From allaboutthejourney.org:

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system.

He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.

“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”

Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:

“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...

https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm

@avalanchethecat said
If you are 'faithful' to your religion, you are OF COURSE closed-minded. You're not an idiot, so obviously you understand this, I really don't understand why you deny it. The 'evidence' you keep talking about which these alleged atheists 'evaluated' was obviously nothing more than scripture - you'd have mentioned it if you had anything else - so it's pretty obvious th ...[text shortened]... s silly book, I'll stick with people who know what they're talking about. You should try doing that.

<<You're talking utter tosh in
claiming that 'many scientists' have looked into the theory evolution and concluded it's untrue. That's just nonsense.>>

Check dissentfromdarwin.org for starters.

<<It's simply not possible to rationally and honestly disregard the vast corpus of evidence supporting evolution.>>

Then why can’t you cite any?

<<You keep wittering on about Darwin as though science ended with the publication of his work.>>

I’m not doing that at all.

<<It didn't. Darwin's views on evolution are an invaluable insight,>>

Darwin’s central belief that one species turned into another species through variation (later dubbed random mutation) and natural selection hasn’t changed.

<<but your ignorant insistence that his views are the entire story>>

Never said that.

<<show quite clearly that you have not actually studied evolution in any depth whatsoever.>>

You’ve reached a false conclusion based on a false premise.

<<You keep claiming, falsely, that I can't cite a 'single shred' of evidence in support of 'macroevolution'.>>

You can’t and haven’t.

<<This is simply a lie. I have given you plenty.>>

You’ve given none! All you say is evidence exists and scientists believe it. That’s not giving evidence.

<<There are countless thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers and texts which all support this scientific theory.>>

This is not evidence. Evidence would be citing facts supported by research from those “countless thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers and texts.”

<<Do you even know what a scientific theory is?>>

Sure do. And I know the theory of evolution does not follow the Scientific Method because its central claim - that one species changes into another species due to random mutation and natural selection - is based on neither observation or experimentation.

As I said before, the theory of evolution is a religion for atheists to justify their atheism.