'Cold-Case Christianity'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside? I think you might have committed an Icarus Agenda here.

No he wasn't, and if you'd bothered reading the link you'd know that. See below:


In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35...

After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics...

Wallace’s first book is Cold Case Christianity; A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C. Cook, 2013)...

In Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection (David C. Cook, 2014)...

In God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (David C. Cook, 2015)...

In "Cold-Case Christianity for Kids", detective J. Warner Wallace draws readers into the thrill of high-stakes investigation by showing them how to think rather than telling them what to think. (David C. Cook, 2016)...

You're welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see this as an atheist former detective looking at these documents against the background of American biblical fundamentalism and American atheistic scientism and Jesus mythism and, came out against the facile logical nonsense of the Jesus Mythers.

Then you see it wrongly. See my last post for the explanation of why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

You omit the big point....

...HE DIDN'T HAVE A FAITH.

He was not religious.

No, you miss the big point: yes he was. Why did you omit the "After his conversion, Wallace began applying..." bit?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sassy,

No, you miss the big point: yes he was. Why did you omit the "After his conversion, Wallace began applying..." bit?

Wikipedia has his conversion after his investigation Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wikipedia has his conversion after his investigation Hillside.

Not according the the Wiki link Hope posted and that I quoted it doesn't. What do you know that the author of the article doesn't?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not according the the Wiki link Hope posted and that I quoted it doesn't. What do you know that the author of the article doesn't?

No, I'm right it's under ''conversion to christianity''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, I'm right it's under ''conversion to christianity''

No, you're flat wrong. Here it is again:

"In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35..."

"After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to..."

[Nearly Sane]

Wikipedia has his conversion after his investigation Hillside.

Vad is right, see
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'


Bluehillside is  correct with his quotes. That is wiki for you but I don't see whether he was or was not  is of much interest. Methods should stand or fall on the methods. Without reading the book it is difficult to comment in detail but both history as it is studied and police work as it is carried out are methodological naturalist. So if Vlad or Hope who have constantly run away from providing a method for investigation of such claims want to read tbook, then get back us that would be great.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vad is right, see
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'

Blue.

Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.

[Hope]

I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.

But do you have any evidence for your assertion that they aren't eye-witness accounts, jeremy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Vad is right, see
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'

No Vlad isn't. I posted: "So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith..."

To which Vlad replied: "Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside?", "all of this" referring to my "decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to...".

Rightly or wrongly, the Wiki article says that he did this after his conversion. He may well have "investigated the gospels" to his heart's content before then, but the application of the methods of criminology we're told came later.

As you say (and as I said), it doesn't matter much anyway - he may as well have used a Geiger counter to investigate the aesthetics of ballet - but I was just correcting Vlad's mis-statement.     

[Nearly Sane]

Blue.

Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.

The editing of my post to leave out the next bit is dishonest, Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.

You didn't - you just ruined yet another pair of trousers.

[Hope]

I've not heard of him, Hope, but I have read similar from others or a-nother many years ago;  also knew a couple of people who did what James Wallace describes and came to faith via that route.

Seem to remember that the advertising agent who wrote 'Who Moved the Stone' (Albert Henry Ross, aka Frank Morison) followed a similar route.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No he isn't. I posted: "So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith..."

To which Vlad replied: "Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside?", "all of this" referring to my "decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to".

Rightly or wrongly, the Wiki article says that he did this after his conversion. He may well have "investigated the gospels" to his heart's content before then, but the application of the methods of criminology came later.

As you say (and as I said), it doesn't matter much anyway - he may as well have used a Geiger consider to investigate the aesthetics of ballet - but I was just correcting Vlad's mis-statement.   

And again to quote
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'

This sentence in wiki clearly states Vlad's position. Denying it and, note when quoting it in your post for the first time, you carefully edited the second part (in bold) of the sentence out, is doing the same sort of dishonest approach as Vlad. The wiki is essentially unclear and contradictory.

[Hope]

Hope,

So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.

And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?

Its seems to demonstrate 2 things, bhs.  Firstly that you can't read - I expressly pointed out in the OP that he was a 'former atheist homicide detective' who set out to 'disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all' fact that that totally ignore in your response.  Secondly, that your confirmation bias encourages you to claim something untrue - that he didn't 'decide(s) to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' unless you are referring to his then faith - atheism - with that last phrase.

[Nearly Sane]

Seem to remember that the advertising agent who wrote 'Who Moved the Stone' (Albert Henry Ross, aka Frank Morison) followed a similar route.

and of of this is entirely pointless, since I could quote numbers of people who gave up their faith on investigating it further. That this has happened in both directions is factual. Had it only happened in one direction, it wouldn't amount to an argument for truth.

If you want to make an argument read the books and tell us the arguments. They are what matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And again to quote
'In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus'

This sentence in wiki clearly states Vlad's position. Denying it and, note when quoting it in your post for the first time, you carefully edited the second part (in bold) of the sentence out, is doing the same sort of dishonest approach as Vlad. The wiki is essentially unclear and contradictory.

No it doesn't, and I didn't "carefully edit out" anything. The issue under discussion was the application of the "cold case" methods of criminology. I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.

We can discuss the "investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts" part too if you want to, but that's not the part I referenced in my original post and it's not the part Vlad responded to therefore.

Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush. 

[Hope]

Rightly or wrongly, the Wiki article says that he did this after his conversion. He may well have "investigated the gospels" to his heart's content before then, but the application of the methods of criminology we're told came later.

You must be reading a different edition or version of wikipedia to me, bhs.  As has been pointed out by others, wikipedia says "In 1996, Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus".  I think the timeline is pretty clear that the conversion came after (and therefore as a result of, the investigation).  Certainly the grammar of the sentence would suggest that.

I appreciate that folk on your side of the fence don't like to admit that it is perfectly legitimate for people, who were once fellow-travellers with you, to change their opinions on proper investiagtion of the material.

[Nearly Sane]

Its seems to demonstrate 2 things, bhs.  Firstly that you can't read - I expressly pointed out in the OP that he was a 'former atheist homicide detective' who set out to 'disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all' fact that that totally ignore in your response.  Secondly, that your confirmation bias encourages you to claim something untrue - that he didn't 'decide(s) to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' unless you are referring to his then faith - atheism - with that last phrase.

'Pointed out' means asserted here. You have missed what bluehillside is saying based on the wiki that you put up that the books are things he worked on 17 years or so after converting. The wiki is unclear and confused, and it looks to me contradictory as explained in earlier posts.

Atheism is not a faith, any more than aunicornism, please stop with this useless illogical canard.  Given the number of years and hundreds of times you have be asked for a non naturalistic method, during whivpvh you have provided nine and consistently lied about doing so, I suggest ypi read the books and see if you can help you with something that will stop you doing that.

[Hope]

... I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.

Which is in direct contradiction to what the wiki does say, bhs.

Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.

I'd be careful that you don't make it so easy to tar you with the same brush, blue.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it doesn't, and I didn't "carefully edit out" anything. The issue under discussion was the application of the "cold case" methods of criminology. I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.

We can discuss the "investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts" part too if you want to, but that's not the part I referenced in my original post and it's not the part Vlad responded to therefore.

Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.

You quoted a sentence, part of which obviously undermines your position, and you left that bit out and that isn't 'carefully editing it out'?

Two words, both positive. Aye, right!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Its seems to demonstrate 2 things, bhs.  Firstly that you can't read...

Charming.

...- I expressly pointed out in the OP that he was a 'former atheist homicide detective' who set out to 'disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all' fact that that totally ignore in your response.

I ignored it because the article you linked to says no such thing. All it says is: "after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus". If you think that he did that to disprove something, then you need to tell us why you think that.

Secondly...

Secondly? Anyways...

...that your confirmation bias encourages you to claim something untrue - that he didn't 'decide(s) to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' unless you are referring to his then faith - atheism - with that last phrase.

Perhaps you're the one who should learn to read? The article says perfectly clearly that only after his conversion did he begin "applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics."

Why is this confusing for you?

[Hope]

'Pointed out' means asserted here. You have missed what bluehillside is saying based on the wiki that you put up that the books are things he worked on 17 years or so after converting. The wiki is unclear and confused, and it looks to me contradictory as explained in earlier posts.

Yet the wiki makes it clear that he converted in 1996 AFTER following the investigative proces that he outlines in the book, NS.  Your suggestion of unclearness and confusion isn't very convincing.

Atheism is not a faith, ...

I appreciate that you don't like to have atheism deemed a faith, but in view of the timeline so clearly laid out in the wiki article, I was simply pointing out to blue that, at the time of initiating the investiagtion, Wallace was a self-proclaimed atheist and therefore if - as blue said - he was applying 'the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith' blue must have been referring to his atheism in this comment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Which is in direct contradiction to what the wiki does say, bhs.

No it isn't. Try again.

I'd be careful that you don't make it so easy to tar you with the same brush, blue.

Again, try reading what the article actually says rather than what you'd like it to say.