Raf

move up. Paul Young is not peppy!

Ernest Borgnine ?

The reason we don't accept "spiritual information" as evidence is as follows: 1. You cannot demonstrate objectively that such a thing exists. Really the list should stop right there. 2. You have no way to objectively evaluate the reliability of the information. Comparing it to the Bible doesn't count because it's the book's reliability that is in question. That would be begging the question (aka circular reasoning). 3. You have demonstrated no means of determining the source of the spiritual information. Is it from God? Allah? Ra? Vishnu? Thor? Satan? Calling it "spiritual information" demands an answer as to its source, which for the sake of presenting evidence you must identify. An objective observer is not obliged to assume the Christian God is any more or less real than any other deity. 3a. You have demonstrated no means of distinguishing between spiritual information and your own predetermined conclusion (aka, made up sh*t). Unless you can address those issues, those who evaluate evidence are under no obligation to put your "spiritual information" on the same plane as actual evidence.

Ascertaining spiritual information means drawing a conclusion and then examining the evidence, tossing out evidence that does not conform to the conclusion you already reached before you started looking at the issue. Calling it "ascertaining spiritual information" is simply an appeal to emotion, trying to frame this fundamentally dishonest tactic in terms that elicit sympathy from fellow believers in opposition to the atheist bogeyman who won't let you get away with using made-up sh*t as facts.

Made perfect sense to me

Before his death Jesus and his apostles were ministers to the circumcision. Matthew 28:19 is post death and post resurrection. In that verse, Jesus plainly tells the apostles to make disciples of all the nations. Given the change in circumstances, and the change in "news," and the change in instructions, it is plain that the gospel they were to preach to the nations would make the nations disciples of Christ... it is improbable that he was telling them to preach the same gospel as previous to his death and resurrection, as the new gospel would at LEAST have to include that information. Not even I, in all my skepticism, would argue that every word Jesus spoke to the 12 during this time was recorded in the gospels. To think that he would tell them to make disciples of all the nations without adjusting the gospel to account for his own death and resurrection defies reason. But even so, once the apostles began carrying out his abundantly clear instruction to preach the gospel to all the nations, it is consistent with the theology of the Bible to surmise they would have received the exact same required revelation that Paul later received. The likeliest explanation consistent with the scripture is that the apostles went as far as they wanted to. Paul gets commissioned when, for whatever reason, the apostles frankly disobey Jesus' instruction by not going further. You asked a question. The Bible gives an answer. You moved the goalposts because you had a pet theory that didn't account for the Bible having an answer that conflicted with it. Your theory has no credible reason Jesus would tell the 12 to preach to all the nations. If he was only sending them to Israel, he would have said so. But in Matthew and Luke he makes his expectations very clear (so does Mark 16:15, if you accept it as canon). In none of those verses does he give the 12 ANY indication that he wants them to restrict their preaching to the circumcision. They didn't. That's on them, but his instruction could not be more clear.

First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual quality of the argument and contribution to the discussion. [The bulk of this post was deleted as soon as I realized it was off topic. The following replaces what I originally wrote. If you saw what I originally wrote: I stand by it. But it's off topic.] Jesus specifically commissioned the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. They didn't do it. THEN Jesus goes to Paul. Seems to me that if the apostles had done what Jesus told them to do, he would not have needed to commission Paul to do something as specific as the very thing he told the 12 to do. That is an explanation that is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches on every level. It does not insert an extraneous subtext of "first Israel, then etc. It's really not even a little complicated. This is what the Bible shows and tells. Why am I the only one quoting Jesus in this conversation? P.S. To TLC: I have twisted NOTHING and I am sick of you LYING about that. You are NOT entitled to LIE about other posters, so STOP LYING. You keep saying that I'm twisting your words when I am merely holding a mirror up to the weaknesses of your arguments. That you should constantly resort to false accusations against me is becoming tiresome. it only shows how little you have to contribute to the dialogue here.

It's amazing some people even need a Bible with their higher reasoning taking precedence over what the d- book actually f-ing says.

It was a number one song. Not by the Beatles, who had long broken up by then [only 3 were alive at most]

It's peppy. that's not a lyric. It's a description of the song.

You have so many relationships in this lifeOnly one or two will lastYou go through all the pain and strifeThen you turn your back and they're gone so fast...Oh, so hold on the ones who really careIn the end they'll be the only ones thereAnd when you get old and start losing your hairCan you tell me who will still care?

I won a wha?

You have so many relationships in this life. Only one or two will last.

I said LESS tragic. Good night everybody! I'm here all week. #NoPolitics

Whether I believe it happened or not is really not the issue. You believe it did, and you STILL deny it, which is hysterical. You asked for a verse where Jesus commissions the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. I showed you a verse where Jesus tells the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. And you're so butthurt about having an atheist point out such an obvious verse that you would rather deny Jesus said it than admit you were wrong. I'm not the one twisting the scripture into a knot to get Jesus to NOT say what the scripture records him saying to conform to my preconceived notions about what happened next.

The five crosses in a cemetery photo was not a depiction of Calvary. Bullinger left that part out. It's really funny how we were taught not to have our doctrine influenced by works of art, only to have a work of art produced in the 18th century presented as evidence of a conspiracy to keep the truth of how many were crucified a secret from the masses!

Ok. Now that THAT's settled. Thanks for playing along, everyone. I started the first countdown thread in 2005, and we lost. I forget what worthy story won, but we were a finalist for our coverage of the busy 2004 hurricane season. We were finalists again the following year, for the busy 2005 hurricane season, but we had no expectation of winning that one (once again Florida was hit by four hurricanes, but one of them was named Katrina, which did a little bit more damage elsewhere -- New Orleans won that year). Since then our paper won its first Pulitzer in 2013 for an entry written by a few specific people. This one was different in that it was a massive undertaking by the entire staff. It just means more to us as a group. Anyway, enough about it. Just, thank you for playing along with the countdown. Maybe we get to do it again next year, for a less tragic reason. Cheers.

not sure drew was in poltergeist

Sorry, got distracted thinking of Jamie Gertz. Damn she's gorgeous. The Lost Boys

Less Than Zero Jamie Gertz

Baby Love Supremes Sally Field. Just kidding. But Baby Love

I'm not really trying to get anyone to change his mind as much as I am trying to expose the embarrassing condescension behind the notion that God did not provide adequate evidence for the resurrection because he didn't want smart people to have an unfair advantage, a proposition that, by the way, can be found nowhere in scripture. Honestly, i would be embarrassed if someone defended my belief system by proclaiming it ran counter to how smart people would interpret the evidence. Nothing in the Bible even hints at the suggestion that objective evidence is the enemy of the gospel. It's only when you recognize the evidence leads to an embarrassing conclusion that people suddenly try to claim there's a natural dichotomy between faith and evidence when it comes to the resurrection. The apostles would be humiliated by the argument, as would Paul and his 500 unnamed witnesses the gospel writers never bothered to document [because it never f-ing happened]. The whole point of the gospels and Acts is to demonstrate that the evidence favors the resurrection. How embarrassed would the writers be to discover, 2000 years later, their defenders admitting the actual evidence is not on their side. Claims are not evidence. The gospels and Acts are not evidence. They are claims that do not stand the test of objective scrutiny.

Romancing the Stone Michael Douglas Disclosure And no, I cannot say with confidence that Kurt Russell was ever in Sally Field.

Oh!!!

???