>> belief overall is not in decline as Dye alleges.

yes, you keep saying this.

>> Sometimes strength should be measured in growth indicators, the ages of participants, or other indicators, rather than flat numbers.

sure. choose a measure. you might be right, some measure may support your claim. you have specified no such measure.

>> The enemy we battle is not footy, but rather injustice, deception, lack of knowledge, superstition, and unbelief.

now that's chutzpah!

<”You ask to see the statistics and then you provide your own. You say 280000 attend AFL matches each week. I’m not sure of what the latest figures are for Pentecostal churches but it would be something in this order.”>

I asked to see the statistics for your claim of growing church numbers and provided real church statistics representing the opposite. Just as Trav and others claim evidence for the resurrection, when all the evidence shows the complete opposite. Your belief makes you lead a life of self deception, the article points this out, even though the author may not have had that intent. The problem you all face is you can't support anything you say with acceptable evidence, yet you talk of logic where there is none. There is nothing logical about believing in a god against all the rational evidence, common sense and historical fact.

You want it to be real, so go to any lengths to deceive yourself into believing what is not, is. The only support you then have is denial and claims which can't be verified in any acceptable way. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, which you demand for yourself. Yet you refuse to allow others to deny your belief using realistic and acceptable based evidence. That's why we have so much misery in the world, god's follows trying to force everyone to believe as they do, with no credibility to back them up.

Stormbay,
I’m wondering what I said to get you so upset. I am accused of denying reality.

This was my contention, that “many parts of the Christian church are flourishing and belief overall is not in decline as Dye alleges.”

While I have already admitted that overall attendance at church is probably down from 1979, there are some encouraging signs. (And sometimes cutting off the dead wood isn’t such a bad thing.)

I grew up in the Melbourne area. Kameel Majdali stated fairly recently (in 2004) that “1,600 local churches that open their doors to 220,000 Melbournians on a weekly basis.” That’s a fair whack! As Bushbasher admitted, the church is not yet quite at death’s door.

In 1979, how many large churches were there attracting more than 500 people each week? Not many. Since then we’ve seen the growth of some of Melbourne’s mega-churches: Waverley Christian Fellowship, Crossway Baptist Church, Richmond Assembly of God, Mount Evelyn Christian Fellowship, and Faith! Christian Church, Dandenong (though not as mega as some of those in Sydney).

The Pentecostal churches have seen much growth since 1979. On its website, the ACC (Australia’s largest Pentecostal movement) currently claims 1,120 churches with over 215,000 constituents. There are other Pentecostal churches that don’t come under this umbrella as Pentecostals are a fairly loosely connected bunch. And following what I said in previous posts, while I’ll be willing to admit that in 2009 they might not outnumber AFL matches every week, they often would (especially in the summer months).

Statistics are a funny thing. ABS census returns put Pentecostals at closer to 100 000, but there wasn’t a box for them to tick. Many didn’t write ‘Pentecostal’ but rather the name of their fellowship, and as I said above, there a fairly loosely connected bunch.

UOG...You are correct...How could I dare to tell people what the Bible really says....lol...Treat people like mushrooms keeping them in the dark and feed them crap!

How dare I quote Chapter and verse from the Bible that proves you wrong...it's UnChristian knowing your Bible...lol!

No wonder Jesus called Pharisees snakes!

Have you failed the test of bible knowledge & intelligence?...well done!

People have amputated legs for more reasons than accidents...Wake up!

Do you believe that a baby who is born with a deformity, and has the leg amputated, had the disability and the amputation as a result of "man's will" and that the baby should have been more careful and amputees don't deserve God's healing?

Even though Jesus said John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”?

Your answer states Jesus' word is wrong in this verse!

If God was the loving, caring God that Churches sell, surely he would help an amputee? Your answer on the reason for God, not growing back amputated legs, is pathetic!

Even though Jesus is quoted as saying John 14:14 you know better...so much for Jesus' word!

Do you belong to a crazy, backwater, religious group?...Wake up!

I question science all the time...just because I haven't done it here doesn't mean I don't!

See UOG your lack of bible knowledge fails you terribly!

You rudely (do unto others...Matthew 7:12), call me a fool (I turn the other cheek..Matthew 5:39) but at least I can spell mustard...lol and at least I can understand Jesus' express instructions.

By your calling me a fool you have just failed Christ! Father in heaven please forgive UOG he fails you!

Please don't explain Biblical passages to anyone you seem unqualified.

So it seems that Christians can cherry pick verses, they can sell the unGodly notion of hell & damnation and that is fine. But someone asks a few tough questions quoting chapter & verse as Jesus did, and they go to water.

The son of God, Jesus' own words undermine church teachings! Amazing! Perhaps Church teachings are simply WRONG!

'TR, Yes indeed. If someone doesn't believe in the possibility of miracles, and more specifically the resurrection of Jesus, then they cannot call themselves a Christian. That's quite simply a non negotiable belief of the Christian faith. Any historical Christian faith that there is. Catholic, protestant, whatever. Look at the apostles creed, the nicene creed, any other historical declaration of Christianity and you will see that the resurrection is, well, kind of crucial.

If you consider the resurrection to be ridiculous then don't believe it. For me personally, I've never actually heard anyone give any other plausible explanation for the established historical events of the empty tomb and the disciples belief in post mortem appearances of Jesus. So I have no reason to disbelieve the resurrection accounts. They are multiply and independently attested, by early eyewitnesses. Using historical enquiry, the events surrounding the resurrection stand up to skepticism, so I see no reason to disbelieve the explanation which makes the most sense of those events and has easily the most explanatory power'

Trav, the Holy Bible is not wholly reliable. This fact has been established by the majority of serious historians. Put simply, there is no excuse for believing that the Bible is literally true. If you attest that corpses spring to life, or that virgins get pregnant then you are either burying your head in the sand, or engaging in a delusion. And I should point out that the same can be said of Muslims and their literal interpretation of the Koran. The idea that a 'being of light' recited the Holy Book to Mohammed is just plain ridiculous.

The real tragedy is that well meaning children and adolescents have to finally work all this out in the adulthood, and then have to suffer the consequences that they have been lied to all their life. It's far better that theologians came out and tell the truth right from the start.

(I recommend the book 'Atheism Explained' by David Ramsey Steele as a complete disproof of the 'personal' God)

TR, you'll need to be a bit more coherent than that. You jump from arguing that historians has shown the bible to be unreliable, to talking about corpses rising from the dead. But what you've completely missed is that historians are not qualified to talk about such matters. Those are metaphysical or philosophical questions. An example: A historian doesn't say "person X did (or did not) do a miracle", all they say is "People around them believed they did miraculous acts, and this is supported (or questioned) by these surrounding historical circumstances: X, Y and Z".

The NT is generally historically reliable in the places and events that it talks about, but when you start talking about the supernatural matters, that becomes an issue of faith, philosophy and the like. This is why you'll often see resurrection debates drift into discussions about Hume's writings on miracles and stuff like that- because miracles are a philosophical and worldview issue, not a historical one. We can say that the historical events surrounding a miracle are generally accepted by all and/or most historians (as is the case, for example with the resurrection) but this is not the same as saying that historical investigation PROVES the event.

Fractelle, your explanation is a very poor explanation of half of the two events. Once you've extended your explanation to account for all the historical data (ie: The appearances as well), then I'll show how your explanation seems historically implausible.