Harvard Study: Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger In The US.

[Tassman]

The gospels far and away meet the evidentiary standards of modern court rooms - multiple, credible eye witnesses with familiarity with the Subject, Multiple sightings over an extended period of time by multiple sources. Corollary events that cannot be explained without the primary event - Perry Mason would love a case this easy!

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts they are hearsay accounts. They are based upon oral tradition, which was more than likely highly embellished, and not recorded until many decades after the purported events. There is no way of authenticating any of them and no one knows who actually wrote them. There is no good reason to think that any of the alleged the miraculous events recorded in the gospels are literally true.

The truth is, you don't want to believe - that's up to you. But you are making a mistake trying to pass off personal doubt for reasoned skepticism.

Nonsense! There is no substantive evidence in which to believe.

[Charles]

And when something is attested as a fact of history by multiple credible witnesses then only a fool would deny it. See Simon Greenleaf's "The Testimony of the Evangelists".

I think it would be interesting of you could provide a little more than a claim and a reference to a book. Can you make an actual argument in favour of the case? I would be interested in seeing in.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think it would be interesting of you could provide a little more than a claim and a reference to a book. Can you make an actual argument in favour of the case? I would be interested in seeing in.

I found the book here within 2 minutes. Maybe you need to learn how to look instead of letting others look for you.

[Charles]

I found the book here within 2 minutes. Maybe you need to learn how to look instead of letting others look for you.

That is called argument by weblink. I can no doubt find a book claiming the opposite. What I was asking for was for MM to explain his view and provide some reason for agreeing with him, giving the credible sources and so on. That is why I wrote: "Can you make an actual argument in favour of the case?"

[One Bad Pig]

That is called argument by weblink.

No, it's not. MM made an assertion, and backed it up with reference to a book which articulates the case better than he can.

I can no doubt find a book claiming the opposite. What I was asking for was for MM to explain his view and provide some reason for agreeing with him, giving the credible sources and so on. That is why I wrote: "Can you make an actual argument in favour of the case?"

And MM doubtless referred to the book rather than making an extended argument because he suspected you're not really interested in the argument per se, but are looking for something to tear apart.

[Roy]

My point is that Christianity is the only religion that rests entirely on a single, mundane fact of history.

It isn't. Mormonism rests on the single mundane fact that Joe Smith was (not) given golden plates by an angel. There are probably others too.

[NorrinRadd]

That is correct, we zealots (as Jim calls us) have remained steady, or increased. Liberal churches are bleeding members. My main point is about Jim's claim that two thirds of Americans think the Bible is bunk. That is just false, even the 40% of liberal Christians left think the Bible is inspired, though not always literal. Which tracks with the poll I linked where 70% of Americans think that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The number of people who literally take all of the Bible... um... literally... is vanishingly small.

[NorrinRadd]

The actual authors of the article disagree with the Federalists spin on it seer. Christianity is on the decline. The only ones holding steady are the real zealots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/f...-the-opposite/

WAPO paywall.

[NorrinRadd]

Which means we're really way ahead!

So... The last will be first?

[Teallaura]

I believe the Bible is literally true*.




















































*In all the parts that are supposed to be literal....

[NorrinRadd]

Looking through just a few of the items on the survey, I'd probably have gotten frustrated and not completed it.

I believe Scripture is inspired and authoritative communication from God. I'm Sola Scriptura. (In passing, I think the choice of some to characterize Anglicans and Methodists as "Prima Scriptura" is silly. AFAICT, neither -- especially the Methodists -- consider Reason, Tradition, or Experience to be inspired and infallible; they are tools with which to interpret and apply Scripture. Virtually no one considers Scripture to stand "solo" with no need even for, e.g., alternate translations for comparison.) However, I'm not comfortable with their repeated use of the word, "literal." They would need to clarify very precisely whether they intend "literal word of God" to mean "every word of Scripture is literally God's word for all times and all places."

[seer]

The number of people who literally take all of the Bible... um... literally... is vanishingly small.

Right, when scripture says that Christ is the gate - I don't think he is a literal wood gate.

[Cow Poke]

Right, when scripture says that Christ is the gate - I don't think he is a literal wood gate.

Just like somebody refers to sunrise, and doesn't actually mean that the sun moves relative to the earth - but that the earth rotates to a point where 'line of sight' allows the sun to be seen in the morning. It's just MUCH easier to say "sunrise".

[seer]

It's just MUCH easier to say "sunrise".

The fact that you still call it "sunrise" just proves that you are anti-science!

[Cow Poke]

The fact that you still call it "sunrise" just proves that you are anti-science!

I just make sure not to wander too close to the edge of the earth.