Raf

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!!!

???

Kurt Russell Guardians of the Galaxy 2 Zoe Saldana

When we were having the Great SIT Debate, I noticed that I was able to change minds by sticking to the facts and evidence while others resorted to wishful thinking and distortion of expert testimony. That's how I feel about this excuse for a debate. People are reading, and if they are being honest, they know who is presenting evidence and who is presenting excuses. But I appreciate your input, DWBH. You certainly have a point.

The problem is that there were historians who recorded events of the time, and there was no tradition in which Pilate released prisoners because of Passover. The gospels give every indication that this happened every year. History gives no indication that it happened any year. Ever. It is a lie. Pointing to the gospels as evidence for Barabbas is like pointing to the work of Tom Clancy as evidence Jack Ryan was a CIA analyst who became President of the USA after terrorists obliterated Congress. Yes, Congress exists. Yes, The USA exists, and the head of state is called the president. But Jack Ryan, like Barabbas, is a fictional character.

Actually I provided significant facts that lead a reasonable person to conclude that scripture is not "evidence" but a CLAIM. Joseph Smith had three witnesses sign a document swearing that they had seen the golden tablets from which the book of Mormon were translated. They were actual people who signed their documents, unlike the gospel writers, and yet we all rightly discount them as bullsh*t lies. By what standard do you deny their testimony but accept the error-laden testimony of cowards who won't sign their names to what they wrote and were wrong about every claim they made that could be cross-referenced? Like the timing of Jesus' birth, the Quirinian census that required people to register where they did not live, the [non existent] slaughter of the innocents, Pilate's Passover traditions? If I got that many facts wrong I would be fired, not defended as "God-breathed."

point of agreement: you are not fooling anyone

The point is seeking the truth, not merely doctrine. Because if there's a distinction between doctrine and truth, then doctrine is a lie.

But your only reward will be heartache and tears if you've cheated the man in the glass. Honestly, I don't know who you think you're fooling, TLC, but it's not me.

How many crosses on Golgotha? Mathhew: three Mark: three Luke: three John: three Inerrantists: FIVE! How many times did Peter deny Jesus? Matthew: three Mark: three Luke: three John: three Inerrantists: SIX!!! Nothing but nothing undermines confidence in the integrity of scripture more than the preposterous and easily disprovable notion that it contains no errors or contradictions.

Taps Ronny Cox Beverly Hills Cop

Parkland consumed our entire metro staff for the better part of a year. I talked to parents, interviewed witnesses, and have attended all but a few court hearings, sitting a few yards away from the young man who committed this monstrous act. My byline is on one of the 20 articles submitted. The fingerprints of every staffer can be found on every article. If ever there was a team prize, this was it.

Step 2: Employ slippery slope fallacy Step 3: Do the non-sequitur/straw man two-step. If inerrancy is the lynchpin of your faith, you will be joining me in the ranks of unbelievers very soon. A reasonable person can only deny the obvious for so long. Regardless, there are a great, great many Christians who recognize that Biblical inerrancy is incompatible with the truth. The book has a LOT of errors and contradictions. It does not follow that recognizing the existence of actual errors and blatant contradictions will turn you into an atheist. But the cognitive dissonance that comes with dodging, denying, and never admitting an error is an error eventually gets to you. How much easier is it to say that different people telling a story passed down for decades transposed some of the details than to try to make those errors fit into one cohesive narrative that not a single writer managed to tell? Inerrancy is the atheist's best friend, I assure you. It should be noted that "the scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35 does not refer to the New Testament or the gospels, as (assuming Jesus actually said it) Jesus said it decades before any of the N.T. was written. So we KNOW Jesus wasn't talking about inerrancy in the gospels.

Not one gospel records two entries. Never underestimate the silliness of inerrancy. If you just accept the fact that gospels can contradict each other, all the problems created by those contradictions disappear.

Agreed. And we have none. Have you noticed that? Because it seems to have zipped right past you. You want to talk about what's accepted in a court of law (where i spend 80% of my working days)? OOH. LET'S! Witness testimony is respected. Hearsay (i heard from a friend whose cousin was dating a guy whose grandfather said he witnessed the resurrection) is not respected in a court of law. And that is literally all we have in the gospels You know what else is accepted in a court of law? Expert testimony from the very people you harrumph as "intellectuals." You know, the ones who authenticate whether things like Hitler's diaries and II Timothy are actually written by their purported authors or by Epstein's mother or by a LIAR who's trying to mislead the gullible. Let me ask you something: Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the resurrection, right? Where the f did she go? Her presence is, at best, implied in Acts 1. And then she's gone. Poof. Ever been to Arimathea? If so, you'd be the only one. If you were walking from San Diego to Las Vegas, would you stop in Portland, Oregon? Because that is as ridiculous as what the Gospel of Mark has Jesus do during one of his constitutionals. Aside from Barabbas, name one person Pilate released on Passover in accordance with his annual tradition. If he did this every year, there has to be some record of this policy, some resentment that an insurrectionist was spared because of a holiday. Pilate had no such policy. The gospels lied. Point being, the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are not based on eyewitness accounts. They are based on hearsay handed down for at least a generation, likely more. So PLEASE, let's use acceptable in court as a standard. It would literally leave you with no credible evidence for the resurrection at all.

We celebrate, but that celebration is tempered by the knowledge that 17 lost their lives. We did what we do, and we did it well. After the announcement I called the dad of one of the victims. He congratulated us and told us to celebrate, but also to get right back to work. It's not over. #RememberThe17

Let's head back. I'll let you know next time I am in Deerfield.

The official page: https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2019?fbclid=IwAR1uilHNGeLSxUMlxIiv5sqdyqAAH3BdYS0Aufld9Gmy4kmLmp2d0JbbiII My entry: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-contempt-hearing-20180814-story.html