Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Ankerberg: Does this make sense what you are hearing, because this is not just an intellectual
argument. We...
>>Naland: This is an incredibly crucial question, because...
>>Ankerberg: Yes.
>>Naland: ...you know, if I'm wrong, there are certain things that are going to happen
to me. Probably.
>>Ankerberg: Yes, and I appreciated you saying that at the front of your article that it
was of primary importance, because we couldn't agree more. What I want to know, is the evidence
bringing you toward different conclusions?
>>Naland: I look at the world today, because I work for the DepartČment of State I look
at the whole world -- not just the ChrisČtian part, and according to the EncyclopeČdia
Britannica 32.8% of the human beings on this planet today are Christians. And that's kind
of a vague definition of "Christian." That includes a lot of people. And so after...
>>Montgomery: Did you know that in the Middle Ages 100% of the people believed that the
sun went around the earth. They were all wrong.
>>Naland: That's correct. So what you're saying is that after 2,000 years that this "shining
truth" has only been able to convince 32.8% of the people of this planet. At that progression
it will be 6,000 years before you get everyone.
>>Montgomery: Well, my goodness, it...
>>Naland: And the reason I think that's the case is that because there are all these religions
out there, and they all have the same truth value, which is pretty low.
>>Ankerberg: Okay, I agree, Mr. Naland. The question would be, though, let's say we're
going that direction. The only reason we're going to go that direction -- and you ought
to be the first to hop on board and become part of the new statistics is if there's eviČdence.
>>Naland: Right.
>>Ankerberg: And that's what we want to know. It's not how many haven't yet accepted it
-- because there's a lot of people listening tonight that may accept it simply on the evidence
alone. There was a time when I had to do it, and I looked at the evidence and felt compelled
that there was no other choice: Jesus was who He claimed to be and gave evidence.
>>Montgomery: That was my situation also. I went to university as a "garden-variety"
20th century pagan. And as a result of being forced, for intellectual integrity's sake,
to check out this evidence, I finally came around. I think often of the stateČment of
Pascal...
>>Ankerberg: This will be the last statement because we're out of time. Go.
>>Montgomery: All right, "good for Pascal" is the last statement. Said Pascal, "There
is enough light to convince anyone who's willing to check it out. And there is enough obscurity
that no one has to accept it if he doesn't want to." So it seems to me that the style
of Mr. Naland's approach here will eventually lead him in a differČent direction.