Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!wivax!linus!allegra!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxu!klick From: klick@ihuxu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Resurrection and the Burden of Proof Message-ID: <172@ihuxu.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-May-83 17:02:46 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxu.172 Posted: Fri May 27 17:02:46 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 29-May-83 05:37:54 EDT Lines: 17 Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Posting-Version:version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxu.UUCP Message-ID:<172@ihuxu.UUCP> Date:Fri, 27-May-83 17:02:46 EDT Organization:BTL Naperville, Il. Tim Maroney cites the "innocent until proven guilty" judicial concept as justification for placing the burden of proof (of the Resurrection) on Christians. He makes it appear that this judicial concept is a very old one. Consider that in the country from which we derived much of our legal system, Great Britain, the judicial position is *still* "guilty until proven innocent"! By historical precedent, then, the non-believers have the burden of refuting the Resurrection. Vickie Klick BTL - ihuxu!klick