Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk>
Organization: EAC
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: You Can Tear Out A Page of Your Bible
References: <KRFVb.10882$ow4.1214@twister.socal.rr.com> <ceab232e.0402110040.ebe1272@posting.google.com> <RqGdnVzcyvkLzbPd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <c0lmde$2tt$0@pita.alt.net> <R_m_b.9265$h44.1063002@stones.force9.net> <c1d0ke$ac3$0@pita.alt.net> <enu_b.9679$h44.1082846@stones.force9.net> <c1e1p3$8a6$0@pita.alt.net> <HJN_b.11469$Y%6.1079250@wards.force9.net> <10ffa4e4.0402251455.6a6303dd@posting.google.com> <b9b3de8.0402260513.2b3d08dd@posting.google.com> <yWr%b.11935$h44.1248971@stones.force9.net> <b9b3de8.0402270417.31e18433@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <b9b3de8.0402270417.31e18433@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <zCQ%b.12890$h44.1322891@stones.force9.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:45:13 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.174.168.212
X-Complaints-To: abuse@plus.net.uk
X-Trace: stones.force9.net 1077925407 81.174.168.212 (Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:43:27 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:43:27 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2798
Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
> Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<yWr%b.11935$h44.1248971@stones.force9.net>...
>
>>Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dgenglish@hotmail.com (dave e) wrote in message news:<10ffa4e4.0402251455.6a6303dd@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<HJN_b.11469$Y%6.1079250@wards.force9.net>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So, umm, what's your scientific theory of the resurrection, then?
>>>>>
>>>>>I never claimed to have one. Nor did I claim that one was necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>-
>>>>>Wayne
>>>>
>>>>Three errors common to medical pseudoscience today, can equally well
>>>>be applied to the Biblical accounts of the resurection.
>>>>
>>>>1. Patient's initial condition is not carefully diagnosed (Was Jesus
>>>>actually dead, prior to the reported resurection?)
>>>>
>>>>2. Patient's final condition is not properly evaluated (Did Jesus
>>>>actually come back to life, after he reportedly died?)
>>>>
>>>>3. The case study is entirely bogus. The patient never existed, as
>>>>claimed.
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not quite what I had in mind in my question for Snowbird.
>>>
>>>Wayne, why is a scientific theory of the new creation not necessary
>>>when a scientific theory of the first one was?
>>
>>The theory of evolution is not a theory of creation of the universe.
>>Resurrection is not a 'new creation' of the universe and is a faith issue.
>>
>>-
>>Wayne
>
>
>
> But the New Testament talks about the universe dissolving with fervent
> heat and a new heaven and earth appearing, so how is that not a 'new
> creation' of the Universe?
That wasn't the issue. The issue was that the resurrection of Jesus isn't
a new creation and doesn't need a scientific theory. Heck nothing *needs*
a scientific theory, *we* just use them to try and find things out about
this universe.
> Which bits of the Bible do you believe and which bits don't you
> believe?
I think you are drifting from the original question.
-
Wayne
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|