It’s hard to see how Christianity would have spread through the world though without Constantine’s ‘conversion’. It helped him to victory though, who knows what would have happened if he hadn’t put crosses on his banner…

Spong is a terrible debater no doubt about that. But he is an old man and probably not at his sharpest these days. You’re right though he gets a hiding in a debate.

Fuzzy thinking, I’d say. Spong’s not the best example of a liberal. Sometimes he even professes belief in an afterlife. really no longer valid as comment on this story though…

Re fundamentalists — I think u r misreading that one too. The liberals (e.g. Spong) ‘appear’ to be smart but get thrashed in debate by fundamentalists (e.g. the Spong/White debate).

These descriptions are pretty vague so make of it what you will

I think they gave up on the art of thinking not that long ago though. early church thinkers were certainly cutting edge, compared with todays, resurrgent fundementalists.

I think Ken, that many Christians long ago gave up on the art of thinking. Just look at most of our churches — inward looking and intellectually vacuous. Any education on these matters has got to be good imo.

The first century church won against all odds — a tiny handful of people with an incredible message against an enormous empire. Today we are losing against all odds due to ignorance and apathy. Harsh words perhaps, but true

I think you mean Copeland btw, and he IS a Catholic, but not a Nat.

I think you should revise your endorsement of Key and find someone more consistent with your strong anti-science, anti-evolution and pro-fundamentalist sponsors.

Just curious but is he catholic like the rest of the national party

However, more seriously, my post on Intelligent design and scientific method is now up. Your comments are welcome – after all definition of scientific method has been a key question at debate.