The Second Oldest Question

Brad: Wow! I'm just getting started and you're...

Wow, Jeff, I'm disappointed. This really is the point when we're just getting started in my opinion. I have been arguing to get to Jesus for quite some time, but you want to bow out now?! I think you don't want to do the hard work of looking at this evidence? I didn't say that was the best evidence. I said I was just getting started.  I think you don't want to look at this evidence. The reason I think this is going to be the last topic is Jesus is the big deal in Christianity. Once we get done with Jesus, if you're not convinced then there's really no point any longer continuing the conversation. When I said we were close to getting done, I imagined another 6 months at least!

Linda, you're a lawyer. Talk to us about the process a lawyer would go through to make a case. Don't I get a chance to make a case, Jeff, about the historical Jesus? [BTW: you're response didn't refute this little bit of evidence anyway.]

Brad: Hitchens vs. Wilson, great debate!

I found this debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. I think the two of them articulate well where Jeff and I stand. What do you think, Jeff? I know some have asked me where they could start to understand the dynamics of our discussion. I think the reading of this debate might be helpful.

Brad: I'm back and ready to move forward

I just finished a big project for one of my classes. I am sorry I've been unavailable the last few days. I have much I want to contribute to some of the previous conversations, and I will do so in due time. But first, I want to move forward on Jeff's proposal for the structure of our conversation.

JEff, you posted the following...
   Here is my proposal for adding structure to this debate:

• What experiences are core to humanity? Love, charity, altruism?
• Which models/ideologies best support these human impulses today?
• Which models/ideologies best support our understanding of human history?

I would argue you are creating a system of dialogue that already negates the supernatural, so why would you want to converse with me about it? That said, maybe I am misunderstanding you. Can you take that first question there and help me understand how you propose we explore it?

Brad: Full of Sound and Fury Signifying Something

I cut and pasted your response Brad Really is an Accidental Chemical Reaction into  Microsoft Word. It was 5 pages, single-spaced! Wow, Jeffrey! I appreciate the time you are putting into this discussion. I believe it makes it all the more fun for our readers.

There is much to say. I could argue every point, but I think that will get us into a tit-for-tat argument and I don't think such an argument will get us where we need to go. Our two "day-in-the-life" scenarios proved a suspicion I had going into them. Both of us respond to the other: "You are totally missing my point and assuming too much about what I believe." (BTW: I am not a supporter of the religious right or left. I don't refer to myself as a Republican or a Democrat. More about that later if anyone wants to hear my stance.) We are arguing large concepts and I think we are better served trying to get to the fundamentals of each person's worldview and the support or lack thereof therein.

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Debate

If you look to your left you will see Jeff's suggested reading of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Dawkins is a well-respected scientist and atheist and professor at Oxford University and probably the best-selling atheist around these days. Alister McGrath is a former atheist, now Christian with a doctorate in molecular biophysics and one of the most respected Christian theologians around today. McGrath is professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford and the writer of the book to the right The Dawkins Delusion (While I have not read The Dawkins Delusion, I am reading McGrath's Christian Theology at present). You can listen to their debate by going to the Ravi Zacharias website.

Brad: Which team has more smart people?

Jeff, the atheist video was interesting. I wonder if it really gets us anywhere. The biblical passages were pulled out of context and I doubt we'll get very far with the "who-has-the-most-smart-people" debate. Did you mean this to be your response to my accidental chemical reaction post?