My goodness, aga, that's some ticket you have on yourself. "Touch of truth" indeed...

>>It was not sarcasm, but a touch of truth, and it bit didn't it... I am sorry if you were offended<<

Offended by what, aga? Please be reassured that nothing you have written has offended me in the slightest. Think Dennis Healey/Geoffrey Howe.

I am impressed, though, by the amount of stretch required to follow your line of reasoning.

>>I see it more plausible than no Roman would have recorded the Resurrection directly...<<

Yep. I think anything is more plausible "than no Roman would have recorded the Resurrection directly"

>>if Roman guards fell asleep on duty near the tomb, they would have been put to death<<

They fell asleep? I thought they were distracted in a game of cards with the two angels.

>>I doubt Pontius Pilate would have reported the case<<

On what grounds? Insignificance?

>>I'd bet the Jews would have paraded Jesus body through the streets to disprove the Resurrection if the body was around, but they did not. Why not?<<

"I'd bet..." is a pretty strong argument around these parts.

>>Surely they would have gone all out for this approach<<

And don't call me Shirley.

>>If so, explain St Paul...<<

That's a big "if", aga.

>>Would you have recorded it today? I doubt it...<<

What is there to doubt?

I'm at a party and some dude turns water into wine, it'd go straight on the blog. Ditto Lazarus, loaves and fishes, leaping lepers, the whole lot.

Then he gets the death penalty...

It would at least make Today Tonight.

Your "the secular press is out to get us" link is pretty unconvincing, too.

Only a "christiannewswire" would make the link between a crashed plane, a "Tomb of the Unborn" and a random guy who they admit "was not an abortionist". At best, it might have made a line in MX's "What the Weird" column.

The reporter was not too good with facts, either.

"The pilot, who was a former military flier who logged over 2,000 miles"

Think about that for a moment.

Pericles

That last post of yours - up there among your best.

AGA

If you want to believe in resurrections, you are free to do so. I just wish that all Christians would treat their spiritual beliefs as private and personal (as do some Christians), as I do mine and spare us the frightening aspect of the mental gymnastics you use to believe in the impossible and then get all het-up when your mental twists are pointed out to you.

Much anguish could then be avoided.

aga,

The Catholic Church now admits the Shroud of Turin to be a fake. When I was growing it was the True Shroud. The Brothers visiting my high school even had a 35 mm slide show. After forensic science demonstrated the Shroud to have been no where near the necessary antiquity, the Catholic Church said it had known for centuries it was not ""The" Shroud and had never held the position it was genuine. Yet, I can still remember the slide show.

I agree with Pericles. Were crowds gathering in their thousands or had the Perfect of Judea and a Jewish King (actually the Herodians technically were Syrian) and the High Priest come to together to discuss one case, the Romans would have recorded:

Today, imagine a State Premier and the Head of Jewish Faith in Australia giving evidence before a Magistrate, who also happens to be a State Treasurer, and nobody officially records the incident?

The Jews would not have paraded a dead body. Especially, before the fall of the Second Temple, their purification codes would not have allow it

Thanks Fractelle. Tea on the terrace? Or perhaps a glass of wine by that roaring fire?

But there was one last item in aga's saga that I meant to comment upon, but forgot.

>>As for Antony Flew, I am intrigued as to why an offhand comment should have such an effect? To close to the mark perhaps...Yes he was a more honest intellectual atheist than Dawkins and co. Maybe that's why I suppose...<<

Aga, every time a religionist feels the ropes at their back, the name Antony Flew is paraded before us.

"Such an effect?" Oh, please.

It's like swatting flies. You know they are harmless, but they are just sufficiently annoying to warrant a slap.

We've been through this often enough on this forum, but here's a quick overview of my own position, because you are new around here.

Point one: atheists are not required to think alike.

The only concepts we share is that there is no God, and that all religionists are kidding themselves to believe that there is.

Antony Flew had a brilliant, highly active mind. He explored atheism from a philosophical perspective.

My atheism does not have its roots in philosophical theory. I don't think like him. I suspect few people do.

Point two: it is of absolutely no concern to me that Antony Flew has decided to believe in the existence of a higher power. It is, after all, a thoroughly personal choice, and one that I begrudge no-one. I did allow myself to reflect upon his rationale, but it appeared, to me, somewhat unsound. Just another variation on the "it's so complex, there must be an amazing mind behind it all" theme.

In my more cynical moments, I also entertain the thought that if he was "wrong" before, maybe he is "wrong" now. But then again, since it is a personal decision taken for entirely selfish and personal reasons, it doesn't seem to be any concern of mine where his opinion now stands.

It just hacks me off the way he is wheeled out every time a religionist is on the back foot.

Pericles,
Most, if not all of my comments are not aimed to be personally vindictive, which you seem to interpret as snide – nevertheless people will often choose to take offense at anything written. I would hope bushbasher saw my comments as dialectic (even if not understood) rather than as something malicious. Comments made by some are obviously meant to offend – but I find a ‘thick skin’ is a good repudiation for such ‘felony’.

I certainly don’t claim to understand or agree with everything Sells has written but he offends me as much as you – that is, not at all. Just as “atheists are not required to think alike” neither I guess are those who might profess Christianity. Some atheists are perhaps best avoided – just as are some Christians. Aga’s fundamentalist disposition and those of similar kind are thankfully overruled by secular authority. Her interventionist god appears to act vindictively against those involved with abortion (see her link). ‘Pro’-lifer’s exhibit a terrible double standard - it seems totally arbitrary to condemn the killing of a human life on the one hand and yet completely sanction its removal on the other – an example of an ideology ‘running amuck’.

Your allusion to a ‘supreme being’ is not mine – none of my posts have ever mentioned such a simplistic ‘alternative’.

Oliver,
I guess the polemic here doesn’t really revolve around the idea that ‘man is able to create’ but is more centered in the ‘form’ of creation existing ‘outside’ of him/ her - in an ontological sense, naturally.

I think George made good reference to your post relating to ‘Infinite indetermancy’ around 12 months ago: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7190#111902

reida,

1) obviously your tone wasn't insulting, but i think pericles is correct. you were belittling my way of thinking as being naive and narrow: missing a dimension or two, in fact.

2) that's o.k. but if you're going to do that, you should have cause and, when queried, be able to back up your charge. you haven't done that.

3) it is not dialectic simply because you say it is. there was no reasoning in your first paragraph, simply unsubstantiated criticism. as for the second paragraph, until you explain otherwise, i still regard your use of the plane-junkyard analogy as nonsense. and cliched nonsense at that.

4) you may be right, that some like me do not appreciate sells because of my lack of theological background. but it is unlikely, and distracting from the main point. in fact, your are supplying sells the cheap defence of the 3rd rate expert.

usually when "experts" are misunderstood it is either because: (a) they are not smart enough to capture the essence of their field; or (b) there is little or no content to their field of expertise. in sells' case, i suspect (b). but even if it is (a), the burden is his.

but of course this is all really giving sells way too much credit. you are of course ignoring the fact that sells is often simply trying to stir, and treats the majority of the critical posters here with contempt.

(5) finally, for your own sake, you should try to write simply. complicated ideas sometimes need complicated expression. but most ideas are simple. you have a real knack of weighing down the simple with $5 words.