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