"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...

Now that we agree on definitions, refer back to my earlier point.
Induction and abduction can lead to false (logical) conclusions even when
logically correct and consistent.
Deduction can never lead to false logical conclusions, but may be limited as
to what conclusions can be reached.
All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you have
to be aware of when using them.

My point exactly. The issue is the initial assumption. I maintain
that you have blinders on with an initial assumption that
"resurrections don't happen unless proven otherwise. "


Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard
evidence is necessary for confirmation.

That's the nugget, then. What hard evidence would convince you?

Good question, and I don't have an answer... but then I don't need to have
one, convincing me is your job.
If I come across some convincing and acceptable evidence, I'll let you know,
but nothing I've seen comes even remotely close, so don't hold your breath


IOW, "I'll know it when I see it?" Oh, c'mon now. That has to be the
ultimate cop-out! It proves my point exactly! Your initial
assumption is that supernatural events DO NOT happen. Not that they
PROBABLY DON'T happen, but that they DO NOT. And with that FAULTY
initial assumption, your deduction winds up wrong.

"I can't even say what evidence would convince me." Pshaw. Even
Doubting Thomas was able to specify the conditions under which he
would believe.

This is a one-time historical event we are talking about, not a
repeatable experiment. Do you believe that the Saxon King Harold
caught an arrow in the eye at Hastings in 1066? That Pickett led a
charge at Gettysburg? That Hannibal crossed the Alps? You're trying
to apply the rules of science to history - using a screwdriver to
swage a Nicopress fitting. (Gotta keep SOME homebuilding content in
here.)

BTW, it is NOT my job to convince you. Are you familiar with the
parable of the seeds? "Some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good
soil" - that one. Remember it from Sunday School? My job is not to
make the seeds take root - that's what "convincing you" is. It's
humanly impossible to convince someone who will not be convinced. All
I can do is shoo away birds and maybe pull out a few rocks and weeds.
The rest is up to God.


While I'm not suggesting conspiracy..

It's not a given that the authorities, and there were at least 3 different
authorities, would necessarily have any/all the ringleaders identified,
contacted, threatened and silenced.

The Sanhedrin hauled *Peter* into court. Remember Peter? The leader
of the apostles?

Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there
*wasn't* a conspiracy.

Best to keep your foil hat on tight, then. You never know when THEY
are listening.... :-p


Wrong again, my friend. Have a look at Acts - Within weeks after the
resurrection, Peter was hauled up in court and ordered to stop
preaching. He refused.

You can't use the contents of the bible to defend the veracity of the bible.

I'm not using "The Bible." I'm using the archelogical and documentary
evidence available, which includes several dozen very ancient copies
of a particular document called "Luke/Acts." That document was
written in the late 50's or early 60's, and chronicles important
events in the earliest days of the "Jesus Movement." I take no
position on whether the document is "inspired and infallible" just
because it happens to have been included in the canon of the New
Testament. As an historical record, it stands on its own, with better
scholarly attestation than Caesar's account of the conquest of Gaul.


you do the best you can and hope it's good enough.

So on the question of the resurrection you demand incontrovertible
ironclad proof, but on the question of your *own* eternal fate you're
perfectly satisfied with a fuzzy-wuzzy I'm-ok-you're-ok warm happy
feel-good explanation? Error, Will Robinson! That does not compute!
War-ning! War-ning! *waves vacuum-hose arms* :-D

First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't need
hard fast rules to live and die by.


Consider the suggestion made, then: There IS an afterlife. Look into
it. Sure I'm crazy - but what if I'm right?

BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of
rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity
is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your
neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along"
doesn't work.


People are notoriously short sighted, especially where short-term pleasures
vs. long-term benefits are concerned.


You certainly got THAT right!

Corrie