Truth of resurrection and death of the apostles (for Willowtree)

Willowtree said: The "meager" evidence is still far greater then the evidence of the Resurrection, which amounts to only a single book called the Bible, which claims truth based on the fact that it is the word of God because the Bible said so...I suppose I could write a book claiming Al Sharpton was the new Messiah. And then claim it was the inspired work of God. Because it says so in the book. Would that make Al Sharpton the Messiah? It is? Please define your definition of objective for us then. I honestly would like to hear it very much.[edit: spelling]This message has been edited by matt_dabbs, 05-07-2004 05:32 PM

---

"The religion of the invisible pink unicorn is based both on faith and logic...through faith we know that the unicorn is pink, while logic tells us it is invisible."

I'm not sure if you have the definition of objective correct.Also, regardless of whether or not God actually exists (and I'm not saying he doesn't), it is not, nor can it be, proven. So any views or opinions that a "Church Source" puts forward would be subjective because it would be based upon the assumption that God does exist and the Bible is literal truth. Non-Church Sources, regardless of whether or not they are wrong about evolution or whatnot, at least approach the problem from an objective standpoint. Non-Church seems to gather evidence THEN draw their conclusions (whether right or wrong), based on the evidence. "Church Sources" on the other hand, begin with the view that the Bible is infallible and literal, then attempt to show how the evidence supports their position. I wouldn't call this objective in the least. Even if the church were right about everything, they would still most definitely be a subjective source.