Even if this and other stories are false, what does it matter? The message in the story is what REALLY matters.

So lying (telling an untrue story) is okay, as long as it spreads your own preferred brand of religion?

Really?

At least the atheists can get away with this, because there's no "atheist credo" saying you can't lie (although, apparently, many have something called "morals" which seem in short supply in the deeply religious community these days).

But for the Christians to support a known untrue story-- isn't there something important in your holy book about that? Something about "bearing false witness?"

Oh that's right. Y'all only obey your own rules when it's convenient. The rest of the time, you pick and choose which ones you like.

Telling a STORY is not lying. I did not witness this at all, but have heard the story. I don't think this is intended to be taken as a factual event, but merely to cause one to think. I can not say it is true or false.

You support something called Evolution that can not be proven or disproven in your circle. Is this lying too?

I do not pick and choose my rules. I try to live my life to the best of my ability. Of course, no one on earth is perfect. I don't expect anyone to live a spotless life. Of course, I do not have to defend anything to YOU. I only have to answer to HIM.

Of course it matters if it is true, and it matters all the more because he begins with “It's a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at a leading university.”

If it turns out that it is not a true story, then clearly the author cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. He is trying to pass off anecdote and rumor as truth. This is the problem with most all people of faith. They reject logic and reason so often that they have poorly developed critical thinking skills and are thus unable to tell fact from fiction.

In a work of fiction you can write the ending however you want. Why not, then, have the chalk break and the student be rejected in his conviction of faith, realize the errors in his thinking and come to the rational realization that his faith was built on irrational and sloppy thinking and he now has a chance to do something meaningful with his life unburdened by the shackles of superstition which kept his at home nights reading “left behind” books and waiting for the rapture… but this is just a fictional conclusion of a fictional story and in no way can account for PROOF of anything.

THAT IS WHY IT MATTERS IF IT’S TRUE!

Ah, yes. Logic and reason.

Of course they are important.

Hmmmm. I hear the wild eyed declarations of Secular Humanism here.

And it is a religion. It has doctrines such as the Theory of Evolution. Unproven and in fact rejected within the realm of statistical analysis as impossible to be true.

But don't tell the faithful of Humanism that little fact.

I am not upholding or denying the reality of this story. I have seen my own share of issues that defy your determinations of what is and is not logical.

But why go there? You would simply label me a liar.

So, in your realm of logic and and reason answer me one little question.

Science says for every cause there is a reason. Bible says God is the reasonless cause of all creation.

Please tell me where the materials, space and time of the Universe came from?

Has it always just existed? Oops. Defies a scientific law to believe that.

Did it just pop into existence for no reason? There is that blasted law violation again.

I am talking the ultimate beginning. When, by the laws of science all the fiber of the universe ulimately first existed.

So, oh you who think you hold the corner on logic and reason, explain the ultimate beginning scientifically.

You cannot. It defies you.

Yea. I could go down a list of scientific reasons God exists. But they would not matter to you. They defy your religion and faith beliefs.

And how about history? Them most attested to figure in history is Christ. And his biggest proofs are those who hated him. But in their hate attested to his miracles, death and so on.

Yes. There are far too many Christians that are not versed in knowledge. But that is also so for Secular Humanists in their religion and doctrines.

There are many Christians holding doctorates in science.

I suggest you put your logic and reason to the demands of testing before you begin making such absolute declarations. Actually check out history, statistical analysis on prophecies of the Bible, archeology and so on before you simply dismiss Christ and the Bible because you have faith it is all a lie or myth.

I am non denominational. Pure Bible believer. Just to let you know before you think I am defending a particular set of doctrines.

I also enjoy such as archaelogy, history and so on.

Christianity is a knowing religion. It has a firm foundation to justify that leap of faith to the God of the Bible.

Bottom line for me here is practice what you preach.

Bye.

St Aquinas the preeminent test on the intuitive proof of a higher being--- "5 Ways to God".

But---- kudos to PTCGuy....

Of the many questionable statements you make here, I'm going to focus on just one... what exactly do you mean by:

"And how about history? Them most attested to figure in history is Christ. And his biggest proofs are those who hated him. But in their hate attested to his miracles, death and so on."

How do you arrive at this conclusion? I am truly curious.

Is it not a wonderful aknowledgement of, and testimony to, the intellectual honesty of humanists that if you ask if a story claimed to have taken place is true, you are automatically classified as a secular humanist? Does this mean that no christian would be interested in, or seeking, the truth of this or any similar matter? Evidently not for PTC guy.
But others disagree. As the siteputs it:.".Christians seem to be especially gullible when it comes to urban legends. We believe an email because it is sent to us by a friend or because we want to believe it since it confirms our world view or because we are just too lazy to check it out. Unfortunately when we pass around falsehoods, we violate the command against bearing false witness and we make it harder for people to believe that our most important message (about Jesus) is true."
In short; if you tell lies, and are caught out, people will tend to think you are a liar.
And, given that Kollmeyer has been caught out as a a purveyor of lies, old hoary fables of an age to have moss growing on them, renderings of Ananias, a disregarder of "Thou shalt not Lie", a breaker of commandments, a long-nosed Pinocchio, a speaker with forked tongue, a dab hand with an untruth, in debt(if of a minor magnitude before the interest starts running) to "The Father of Lies" which is Satan himself, in presenting them as "a true story", should he not confess up to this, according to his theology?
If not for any love of truth, which evidently might cause him to be maligned as a secular humanist by some, then for the sake of his soul?
His veracity has not merely been impugned, but run over with a Mack truck, stomped on with hob-nailed boots and run through the shredder, and he has no reaction to being shown up as, at least, a barefaced lazy fact-checker, for three weeks running?
Does he claim "privilege of clergy"?
Or does he simply "practice as he preaches"?
In that case, his congregation may have a problem.

And I thought I was being vitriolic… but thanks for reinforcing the point that it isn't they story but the claim of truth made at the beginning of the story that is the problem.

Well, you did not pay close attention before you went after me.

Try reading my post again and actually see what I was responding to.

Nowhere did I say either the story was real or not. In fact I said nothing about the story.

Here is what I was responding to:
In a work of fiction you can write the ending however you want. Why not, then, have the chalk break and the student be rejected in his conviction of faith, realize the errors in his thinking and come to the rational realization that his faith was built on irrational and sloppy thinking and he now has a chance to do something meaningful with his life unburdened by the shackles of superstition which kept his at home nights reading “left behind” books and waiting for the rapture…
Try spinning anything in that statement into being Christian. Reject his faith as being irrational thinking? Superstition?

And while I don't know what brand of Lutheran Kollmeyer is, most are Amillennialists.

I didn't bring up the attacks on Christians being irrational and so on.

But I have made a challenge to those attacks that were not answered and simply replaced by spinning and dodging to try to salvage some ego. And, of course, more attacks.

Those added issues were a deliberate attack on the rationality of Christians. And I responded.

Gets a little touchy when the table is turned, doesn't it?

The interesting thing is that the post was specifically about the statement of the story being true… and the counterargument that it (1) was not and (2) was therefore fiction. The section you are responding to is a twisting of that fiction to support and atheistic point of view and deride the intelligence of Christians. In your indignation however you failed, clearly, to see that that is they very point.

If someone is writing fiction they can have it say whatever they want, have it support whatever they want, and so on. In both of these examples they create Straw Men arguments and they boldly smash them down. Fine, that’s what they are… what they are not is TRUE!

The main difference between my twisted little story and Kollmeyer’s original posting is that he SPECIFICALLY stated : “It's a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at a leading university.”

That’s what the argument is about… and it is certainly not about “the wild eyed declarations of Secular Humanism” or Evolution. It is about the religious who feel they have a monopoly on the truth, but then positively demonstrate an inability to see what is demonstrably true or false. God may not be demonstrably true or false, but “It's a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at a leading university.” is a statement that can be. It is falsifiable (and is in fact false).

However, if that is the route you want to go let’s look at another word you seem to be having trouble with:

Theory (in science):
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2) a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena *the wave theory of light* *Newton’s theory of gravity*

In science something becomes a theory AFTER it successfully accounts for all the available evidence. It is not a beforehand speculation… that is a hypothesis. You are using the word incorrectly. Unlike the layman definition, in science the word theory is applied when something has been in practicality proven by all prevailing evidence and is as close to a fact as honesty will allow. Science, however, can critically acknolwedge its limitations and therefore does not tend to claim much of anything is absolutely proven. As such the nature of atoms, gravity, light, AND evolution are all scientific theories. (In layman terms however these scientific theories are fact)

I have lots of layman theories about why religious people are they way they are, but layman theories are just abstract speculation. I don’t know of any scientific theories which account for why you act they way you do, because there hasn’t been one that accounts for all the evidence of the manifestation of religiosity within human cultures.

Please, for the love of honesty, stop misusing the word theory. You are doing so much more harm than good. And I know you want to be a good person. Don’t you?

Double Post.