| Author | Message | ||
     Kevin |
Hi all! I'm a former fundamentalist Christian who escaped. I don't consider myself anything religiously; a Deist perhaps. I followed a link to this site and have been enjoying it a lot. I posed this question to John by email, and he suggested we throw this open to discussion. I said: ]You seem to regard the Bible and the Christian view of Christ as factually true (e.g. crucifixion, ressurrection), yet I can't seem to locate any discussion on your site of the epistemological issues involved. If Biblical statements are subject to textual criticism and that kind of thing, i.e. the meaning of the Bible becomes subject to human intellect, then what is the objective basis of belief (if there is any)? Why remain a Christian as opposed to becoming, say, a Jew, Muslim, Pagan or Deist? And John began exploring the issue by asking this: ]Can you martial proof that would establish beyond any and all doubt that you were born, as opposed to your having come into the world via some other means? Now my first reply: First, I don't think that anything can be proved beyond any and all doubt. If someone wants to claim that everything is an illusion a la The Matrix, I doubt that anyone could disprove it. We might find the idea entirely unconvincing, but disproving it might be another matter. I imagine that's why criminal courts set the standard of proof as "beyond all reasonable doubt. Can I establish beyond any and all doubt that I was born? I doubt it. But I think I can establish beyond reasonable doubt that I was: there are birth records, hospital staff (not that one particular mother giving birth uneventfully 32 years ago would stand out in their memeories that much), there are friends and relatives who were around at the time. Bringing this question closer to my original question though, within another generation all the eyewitnesses will likely be gone. There will be a trail of documentation linking me with that birth record even after I'm gone --one thing our society does very well is documents things! Now, If I was someone historically significant, or even an average guy whom some sought to attach significance to --as in the Life of Brian-- then there are additional variables introduced. Those in power might decide that they would like to remove all mention of me from the records, or perhaps change me into someone else. In any case if all documentation on me was under the control of a group who had an agenda regarding how people view me, then I would advise anyone to exercise a degree of skepticism. | ||
| Scooper |
Kevin, Thanks for starting the thread! OK, we are at reasonable doubt. Let's assume that you can produce a handful of witnesses to your birth: a woman who claims she bore you, a man who claims he is your father, and that he witnessed your birth, and a paper birth certificate signed by someone claiming to be the physician who attended the birth, and who has since departed this life. There are a few people claiming to be family friends and relatives who did not witness the actual birth, but who claimed to have known your mother during her pregnancy, and that she came home from the hospital with an infant. Although they did not keep the infant under continuous observation during its growth and development (the evidence was not in a continuously witnessed and documented chain of custody!) they all feel certain that the infant did indeed grow up to be the you we all know and love today. I'm afraid this still doesn't meet the standard of reasonable doubt that is (well ought to) be applied by a jury before convicting someone of a serious crime. The evidence is circumstantial, other than the live sworn eyewitness testimony of two witnesses (your parents), whose testimony is open to doubt because they are intimately connected with you. Because of their obvious bond of love toward you, they may have some reason to falsely assert that you are their child. There must be some presumptions we must accept in order to allow ourselves to be reasonably convinced of your personal physical birth into this world. | ||
| James Stafford |
For me to believe someone wasn't born into the world, as opposed to coming into it another way, would require some other hypothesis that was just as compelling, given the evidence. I'm with David Hume on this. It's simple enough to believe that someone was born. Ordinary claims do not require the same level of proof as extraordinary ones. However, in my mind, the evidence for the extraordinary claim of Jesus' resurrection is not nearly enough to justify believing it in the literal sense. But I agree with Marcus Borg in maintaining that it doesn't have to be true in this naive sense, for Christianity to be true. For one thing, Jesus' life and teachings stand on their own as profound spiritual truth. Moreover, the Resurrection still has plenty of value in the mythical sense. It is a beautiful story that has been told in diverse times and cultures and reflects a profound human mystery: In spite of unimaginable catastrophe and loss, even in the face of the certainty of death, life cheats death, meaning triumphs over asbsurdity. And we somehow find the will to live on, not by merely enduring it, but in appreciation and affirmation of life's beauty. I admit that these comments don't solve your epistemology problem, rather they bypass it. Don't get me wrong though, I think beliefs are important. In fact it is of vital importance to examine ones beliefs--a mind is of no use at all unless it is subject to being changed, but I could be wrong ;-) As for believing in the resurrection (as opposed to the Resurrection), I'm in Benjamin Franklin's camp. He was asked about whether one should believe the fundamental Christian claims. He responded that if belief in those doctrines had the effect of making one more apt to follow Jesus' teachings, then one should believe them. That's why I visit this site. There's a lot of valuable teaching and ministering going on here, no doubt motivated by beliefs with which I disagree. But belief, and how you arrive at it, is for me and the better part of this community, a secondary issue. | ||
| Kevin |
John, OK, one last-ditch effort to prove that I was born :-) DNA analysis. Of course, that's assuming that OJ's former lawyers are not involved here. James, I have come to the same conclusion regarding the level of evidence needing to be commensurate with the significance of the claim. I was astounded that the certitude of my former pastors could descend so quickly into hems and haws regarding the evidence for what they claim. Personally, I can't believe Christianity on any provisional or pragmatic basis, not when Jesus is quoted saying all followers of other religions are lost, and not if we accept or reject the veracity of Biblical statements based on evolving human knowledge and intellect. Yet for those of you who can believe in some way, I envy you. | ||
| Scooper |
Kevin, DNA analysis, provided it were not tampered with, would indeed establish that you are the genetic child of your parents. However, it would not tell us that you were born of these parents, as opposed to having been delivered by Caesarian section (a distinction of some importance to MacBeth) or that you were not produced by from their cells by genetic engineering and raised to a full-term baby in an artificial environment. I admit that the technology to do the latter is not known to exist at this time, but a few years ago DNA testing didn't exist either (which is why a clever lawyer-politician like Bill Clinton recently got caught with his pants down, so to speak.) Now, I admit that I believe that you were born, because as you, James, and Hume point out, birth is a commonplace thing. I just wanted to establish how difficult it is to really prove even ordinary things, before we get to extraordinary things. And now to the point that Kevin and James seem to be driving toward: Are there any grounds for supposing the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus to have actually happened? Let's dispense with the crucifixion. The Romans crucified lots of folks, and we even know the details of their technique, because the skeleton of a crucified man has been discovered and examined. Crucifixion, like birth, used to be commonplace. There is no reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified. (Although Muslims do doubt this. The Prophet, blessed be he, did not want to have to establish his credibility by following this example - and passing through defeat and death.) The resurrection is a tougher thing now than it was 2000 years ago. Back then resurrection was not all that unusual. The entire Egyptian religion centered around the resurrection of Osiris. The Greeks had a cult based on the resurrection of Attis. (Both of these cults involved castration or emasculation. That the crucifixion-resurrection of Jesus does not means that Christianity is not supposed to be as penis-oriented as some of its more dogmatic practicioners present it.) In any case, the resurrection of Jesus would not have been viewed as so unusual an event as we view it today. Roman culture essentially said, "OK, another demigod or hero has returned to life. So what?" Israelite culture might have said, "Yeah, sure. Lazarus returned to life, too. Elijah was taken up in chariots of fire - he'll be back someday, too." In other words, the burden of proof was shifted from what it is today. Today we focus on whether the resurrection happened at all. Back then what was singular about the resurrection, was that it was not the resurrection of a recognized hero, demigod, or other person or renown, but the resurrection of an ordinary person. And that personal resurrection was promised to all his followers, without any other qualifications, however humble they might be. The focus of doubt was not on whether a person favored of God (or of the gods) could be resurrected, but on whether an ordinary person (in this case lower than ordinary - a criminal convicted of sedition against the State) was resurrected. The focus was on the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the individual, rather than on the event itself. More later. The Great Dane must be played with now. | ||
| Munro Williams |
John Futterman makes some interesting observations concerning resurrection in the Classical world, to which I can only add: I believe that Christ rose from the dead for the same reason I believe the Punic Wars happened. Paul writes of 500 people he knew who talked with Christ, in the flesh, for about a month after His resurrection. Attempts to supplant the historical Jesus require just a little too much faith for me. | ||
| James Stafford |
John, you're absolutely right about the extraordinariness (or lack of it) of resurrection claims in the first century. On one hand that may have been why nobody was careful about preserving evidence. On the other hand that may be why those who felt the continuing presence of Jesus after his death used resurrection terminology to describe their experience. ('I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it') So we'll never know for sure. But the questions go further. The first question is how to even make sense of the claim? First, if you're still alive, you can't have died. Death is by definition final. Second, if he's still alive, what happened to him? Where is he? Luke's answer to that question in Acts certainly has no literal meaning: he went 'up there'. We know what 'up there' meant according to a first-century cosmology, but we know now, in the twenty-first, that there is no 'up there' to go to. So the fact of Jesus’ resurrection is more problematic than proving its truth or falsehood. Jesus' resurrection is not a scientific fact because there is no way to even formulate it as one, much less test it. But there are more problems. One begins to wonder what is gained by believing in the resurrection? Even if one could comprehend some factual way of understanding it, what does that get you? Evidently a lot, because people go to incredible lengths to argue for its factuality. N.T. Wright goes so far as to postulate an alternative physicality that Jesus entered into. I don't understand why one would want to build their house on such shifty sand. I get very nervous relying on some fact that we're never going to prove as the basis for my faith. Actually, it's more than just a postulate; it’s a whole series of them. And as far as I can see, it doesn't get anywhere. But I admit that's only as far as I can see. I don’t want to get carried away here. I don’t want to sound like one of those polemical religion-bashers. I understand that Occam's razor is really just an aesthetic of parsimony. So what if someone else finds their comfort level with a few more (or less) axioms than I do? I happen to know a lot of people who DO go down that chain of belief and somehow come out the other side with a deep and genuine faith. But let me clarify that I agree with Allan Watts: faith is the antithesis of belief. Faith comes when one recognizes that one's beliefs are merely approximations to truth. Mr. Goedel's insights into the provability of self-consistency within any non-trivial set of axioms are very applicable here. At some point we have to leap off the merry-go-round of tautology or the infinite chain of superfluous propositions. Onto what? Onto we-don't-know-what. But we leap. That's faith. | ||
| Scooper |
Munro, Thanks for bringing up Pauls first letter to the Corinthians 15:4-9: "...and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one umtimely born, he appeared also to me." So we have a resurrection witnessed by more than 514 people, which is probably more than the number of people who witnessed the crucifixion. The accounts were not written down immediately, because everyone, including Paul, and perhaps even including Jesus himself, thought that the end of time would happen before the Apostles died. For a long time, they thought that writing would only slow their evangelism. Most people were illiterate, and what value is a written account compared to the words of living eyewitnesses? It was only when the Apostles began to die that the Apostles and/or their disciples thought to put their accounts on paper. Returning to the modern world, then, the death and resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by more people than usually witness anyone's birth or death. Since birth and death are universal, we don't require much in the way of proof to believe that someone has been born, or that someone has died. The resurrection is extraordinary, but after 2000 years, only ordinary levels of proof are available to us. Except perhaps the extraordinary tranformation of the community of believers after Jesus arose from the dead. Regardless of the level of physicality we attach to the event, people believed they spoke with him, touched him, and watched him eat after he arose from death by crucifixion. These experiences transformed them from a cowering (and in some cases fleeing and dispersing) band of demoralized failures into a force that changed human history. In spite of persecution, torture, and execution, they spread the Word until Christianity became the state religion of the empire that had sought to crush Christ and Christianity. Something inspired them in an extraordinary way, to an extraordinary degree. I think that something was the resurrection of Jesus. | ||
| Munro Williams |
James, Faith today means belief in the absence of sufficient evidence, and it's obvious that this view and Scripture disagree. As Paul observed, and permit my paraphrase, "If Christ didn't rise from the grave then we are imbeciles." As far as the New Testament Church was concerned, it really happened. | ||
| Kevin |
All, Thanks for your replies. I just keep balking at the idea that the resurrection is true simply because the Bible says it's true. What we now have as the Bible was established only in 397 by a church that by that time was cozy with secular power and was suppressing dissent. As far as Paul's mention of the 500 witnesses, how do we know they actually existed? There is no way to verify their existence. Paul does not name any of them or where to find them, which I find rather curious since he presents them as people whose testimony can be sought. I also find it curious that they are not mentioned in any of the gospels. Beyond that, if we are going to accept the Bible's testimony, what do we do with statements like Jesus' saying that followers of all other religions are danmed? What about the OT references to God-ordained murder, rape, pillage and slavery? It certainly isn't compatible with the NT depiction of a universal God of love, does it? Really, doesn't it come down to accepting the testimonies about Jesus that have survived centuries of censorship by the faction of the church that had become dominant? And if so, on what basis should we not similarly accept the latter-day testimony of Mormons, who assert that God tells them directly that the old guy in Salt Lake City is a prophet? | ||
| James Blodgett |
My issue with the resurrection is not whether it happened, but our state of knowledge about it. Paul may have had many sources, but we have one, the Bible, which comes from a time when many weird stories were told. Under these circumstances, some suspension of judgement seems reasonable. But Christians (some Christians) say that God makes ultimate judgements of people based on whether, given this evidence, they "believe." I hope that God is not like that. I hope that we can get to something like the ultimate purpose in life, which may be God, through other paths. One of those paths is right here, what I might call the "way of BS." It is not a deeply religious experience, but it does have a religious feel, and is the best some of us can do. | ||
| Munro Williams |
Well, guys, as I intimated earlier, we may as well call into question the Punic Wars or Pericles' funeral oration. The same criticisms apply. We can be more certain of the textual accuracy of the Bible than we can of, say, Aristotle, or any of the other classical authors. Were Plato's Republic to receive the same amount and type of criticism as Scripture, then we would necessarily call into question Plato's and Socrates' existence. There's just so much more biblical material to work with, with better dating, than there is of anything else. As to the justice of God, does that really fit in to a thread on epistemology? If we're discussing the best way to determine what is true, then perhaps someone should open another thread on ethics and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. | ||
| Scooper |
Kevin, So what do you make of the Apostles and their followers being so absolutely convinced of the resurrection? So convinced that they would give up their honor and their lives to spread the word? Without that conviction on their part, there would be no Christianity today. | ||
| Kevin |
Munro, I'm familiar with that particular apologetic. However, I think we are comparing apples and oranges. Unless I am mistaken, there is corroborating archaeological evidence of the Punic Wars, and when it comes to accounts of, say, Plato, we have the guy's own writings to verify his existence. Another issue I have with that is that nobody has (to my knowledge) ever claimed Plato's Republic or the Punic Wars as absolute, inerrant truth that affects the eternal destiny of everyone who ever lived. If we discovered tomorrow that The Republic was a big literary fraud, we would think "Wow, that's interesting!" but nobody would have their whole worldview turned upside down. | ||
| Kevin |
John, Do we know for sure that this is what the apostles suffered, or could this have been hagiography after the fact? Do you know if these stories were accepted early on as opposed to being "collated" in the 4th century by Constantine's buddy Eusebius? Christianity wouldn't exist without martyr apostles? I get the impression from Acts that it caught on rapidly enough before the Apostles suffered any harm. | ||
| James Stafford |
Munro, I certainly don't think anyone is imbecilic for believing in the resurrection. What I do think is that those who do call believers imbeciles are just fundamentalists of a different stripe. I'm more interested in the effect of people's belief on the quality of their being than in the beliefs themselves. You know the type of tree by its fruit. I agree with Kevin that apologists can't have it both ways regarding skepticism of the Bible. Sure, no one but a few classicists are poring over the statements of Socrates, trying to determine what is historical. But then no one's making the same kind of claims for Socrates as they are for Jesus. Again, the level of inquiry must be proportional to the singularity of the claim. How come neither John nor Munro addressed the question, "If Jesus didn't die, where is he?". At least Luke and N.T. Wright take that question seriously enough to provide an answer. Each of their answers is appropriate to the paradigms of their respective centuries. Do either of you give credence to modern-day appearances? Do either of you view the resurrection as the resuscitation of a corpse? Or was it something else or something more? My opinion is that the resurrection cannot even be formulated as a scientific hypothesis, much less proved. It is legitimate scientifically to discount it prima facie, without even considering evidence. Like I've said before, that doesn't make it wrong to believe it. But it is wrong to claim a scientific basis for that belief. As far as the first Christians being so convinced of Jesus's resurrection, has the world ever lacked for zealots tenaciously enduring martyrdom for myriad causes? I believe that the major contributors to the spread of early Christianity were their attitude of sharing, their inclusiveness, and their joy in living. I don't claim any scientific basis for that belief. I may be an imbecile to those who think otherwise, but I don't care. | ||
| Scooper |
Kevin, I did not mean to say that the martyrdom of the Apostles caused Christianity to spread. I said that their willingness to do anything to spread the word, even unto dishonor and death, caused the spread of Christianity. As for martyrdom, Eusebius is far from the only witness. Augustine was most impressed by the martyrdoms he saw, which he acknowledged helped prepare him for conversion. James, I didn't answer your question because I believe that Jesus did die, was resurrected, put in some post-resurrection appearances, and then left this world for wherever we go next. But the question ignores those people who have had personal experiential encounters with the risen Christ - a phenomenon which continues to this day. They base their belief on their personal experiences. They usually call themselves Pentacostals, Evangelicals, etc. Most of them become Fundamentalists as well. The rest of the culture finds ways to tune them out. | ||
| Munro Williams |
James, What I'm trying to do here is describe how Paul was willing to go the whole length and essentially state that Christ's resurrction is central to Christian belief, that if someone finds the body, then Christianity collapses. One cannot claim to be a Christian, at least as far as the New Testament church is concerned, and not believe in the Resurrection as an actual fact. As for religious hysteria, "miracles" today, and the like, well, it is my firm belief that miracles were used to validate the message of the prophet, and that there have been no miracles from God since the last apostle died. Yes, God intervenes when He wants to, but this is not the Apostolic Age, and seeking the miraculous, depending on divine intervention these days can be counter-productive. It is also often just laziness, and so, immoral: "Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God." Rewriting the laws of physics is pretty heavy stuff. Today some people use the Bible like a totemic device, and read it as if it were a collection of magical incantations. This leads to all kinds of mental problems. A lot of folks, I think, want something for nothing, magic, if you will, and descend into madness through euphoric, hysterical religion. It's a lot healthier to read the Bible like any other book, as an important observation can then be made: The miraculous in the Bible is rather infrequent. Someone made the tabulation, and in the several thousand years the Bible covers, only a couple of hundred have miraculous occurences. I think that this makes a strong case for a more thoughtful perusal, and helps us guard against megalomaniacs suffering from delusions. And I certainly don't think that Paul or the Apostles were deluded. | ||
| Kevin |
John, Auggie came even after Eusebius. After all, as already noted, there is a difference between being a believer due to what one witnesses personally and being a believer for other reasons. The latter category --including martyrs-- is seen in several religions. OK, so does anyone here think there is a basis for the veracity of the Resurrection other than that of a personal experience (or experiences) separate from the event itself (that we can verify)? Just trying to clarify. | ||
| Munro Williams |
Kevin, By the same criteria, using only verifiable, empirical facts, can you verify that Caesar crossed the Rubicon? | ||
| Kevin |
Munro, I think so. There are Roman artifacts, buildings, etc. strewn from the Rubicon to the Antonine wall that we can see with our own eyes for the price of air fare to Europe. Contemporary historians trace the beginnings of that to Caesar crossing the Rubicon. A million Celts didn't die because we *think* he went, and there are (to my knowledge) no credible alternate explanations. | ||
| Munro Williams |
All that's by-the-by. I think this is called "post hoc ergo propter hoc," but my Latinisms aren't up to snuff. The artifacts indicate Romans, but not necessarily Caesar. We rely on written records for that, and trust that they're true. I'm just arguing that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander here, and given the tremendous amount of written New Testament material, we can be certain that Paul did write a lot of the New Testament in absolute candor. | ||
| Kevin |
Munro, The Latin is correct. But as I said, in the case of Romans in Gaul there is no credible alternate explanation. Alternate explanations have been offered regarding the Resurrection accounts, seemingly given some credence by differences in the accounts. But what does Paul's candor have to do with this? And again, it's of no eternal consequence if it turns out that Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon. Look at it this way: If you develop a new kind of mouse trap, you can build and market it tomorrow without further ado. But if you develop a new cancer drug, then it will be subjected to years of careful scrutiny before you can market it. The difference? People's well-being is at stake. Christianity claims to be the sole remedy of spiritual cancer, so IMHO it should anticipate and withstand a higher level of scrutiny. | ||
| Munro Williams |
"But what does Paul's candor have to do with this?" Paul asks people to take him at his word, and even further, essentially says, "Look here, I know 500 other people who saw this. If you don't believe me, ask them." This is at least as many as those who heard Pericles' funeral oration. By all standards of evidence, we can be as sure of Christ's resurrection as we can of any historical event in the Classical world. The alternate explanation was that Paul and his fellow travellers were deluded. I don't accept this because of the coherence and lucidity of the theological arguments in the New Testament. They are rationally argued. They were received with acclaim at the Areopagus in Athens, where a fallacious or poorly constructed argument would get you laughed out of town. | ||
| Kevin |
OK, since we seem to have a few skeptics here, let me ask this: Is it not true that scholarly consensus regards the Gospels as first century documents, and as the writings of those who purportedly saw the risen Christ? | ||
| Munro Williams |
Kevin, Yes, eagerly anticipating where this is leading... | ||
| Jon |
A great website and an interesting exploration of the truth of the Resurrection. In the 80s, David Jenkins the then Anglican bishop of Durham, UK, described the Resurrection as a 'magical trick with bones' which as you can imagine went down a treat in Thatcher's Britain! The point he was making was that if you insist on the physical Resurrection of Jesus as the starting point for Christian faith you risk following an epistemology that owes itself more to the Enlightenment than the early church. I agree with John when he pointed out that resurrection myths were prevalent in the Ancient world. Shades of the resurrected hero/demi-god myth can be found in the way the Gospel narratives describe Jesus, particularly in John. Even for the early Christians, it was difficult to show Jesus as an ordinary person. The idea was just too strange. In many ways this reaction can be seen in the approach of some Christians today. It is easier to believe in an 'objective,' 'certifiable' truth than to engage with the questions that arise from the depravity of Jesus' death and the stangeness of his resurrection. We forget that at the end of Mark's Gospel, the women run from the empty tomb in fright. For the record, I do believe in Christ's physical Resurrection for many of the reasons given. However, I would want to start with the truth that Christ's life and death continues to confront and challenge all traditions of human thought as much now as two thousand years ago. It's nice to reach out to my brothers and sisters with and without Christ across the pond! Bye for now. Jon | ||
| Munro Williams |
"... you risk following an epistemology that owes itself more to the Enlightenment than the early church." This is true but I don't have a problem with that. When knowledge is one's own opinion formed by one's own observations and deductions, it owes nothing to indoctrination or intimidation. | ||
| Jon |
Good point, but I'm not entirely sold on the idea that 'rational knowledge' is free from indoctrination and intimidation. The British justified their right to culturally and economically pillage countries such as India on the observation and deduction that we were more technologically advanced than they were. Today, many of us in the West choose to ignore the impact the Global Economy is having on the environment and the people of the two thirds world because we are reaping its benefits. I'm afraid as a flawed human being I do not believe my own opinion and actions always impinge on other people to their benefit and that my 'objectivity' is the same as other peoples. The fact is that in this age of rapid communication we're making the same mistakes we have always made. We find it easier to ignore that which we don't want to know. In the end, I want to argue against this tyranny of knowledge over belief, of objective over the subjective. For me, Christianity has absorbed the Enlightenment project in too uncritical a fashion. When some of us talk about Christ being 'The Way the Truth and the Life,' we're often frequently using an understanding of truth given to us by Descartes rather than Jesus. Rational knowledge is a useful tool in helping us explore and understand the world, but we should recognise that it is never the only one. | ||
| Munro |
"...I want to argue against this tyranny of knowledge over belief..." Liberal democracy is the product of the Enlightenment. Everything we know (there's that word again) to be good, true, and beautiful is the result of the Enlightenment. Everything we know to be evil, false, and ugly is the product of blind, unthinking obedience to arbitrary authority. Logic, (and ponder the relationship of that word to "logos") is the antidote to tyranny, not its cause. You're confusing cause and effect here. | ||
| Scooper |
The "tyranny of knowledge over belief"? Sounds like someone trying to argue that because they believe PI to be equal to three, that it must (at least for him or her) be so. The idea that PI is an irrational number starting with 3.14159... is some kind of tyranny, I suppose. There is no such thing as rational knowledge. There is EMPIRICAL knowledge, that which can be demonstrated to be true over and over again. And there is rational thought, argument, and discourse, which allows us to erect a theoretical framework on empirical knowledge. But that framework is only what we expect to be true. We do not know it to be true until we test it empirically, via controlled experiment. Now, when your belief conflicts with empirical knowledge, it is a safe bet that your belief is in error. But what has this to do with the original topic - whether there is any evidence to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead? And what has this to do with Kevin's previous provocative posting - namely that the Gospels are presumed to have been written by witnesses to the Resurrection? In point of fact, the weight of scholarly opinion is that they were written by disciples of the Apostles. We simply don't know whether these people witnessed the Resurrection. Mark may have been written by such a witness, but I don't know about the other Gospels. And I, too, am curious where Kevin would lead us... | ||
| Munro |
John, I've always understood epistemology to be the concept of how do we know that we really know what we know? This naturally leads to all sorts of tangents and in the case of the Resurrection goes literally to the ultimate purpose of human existence. There'll be all sorts of twists and turns on this thread, I hope. | ||
| James Stafford |
John, How do you verify the hypothesis, "The only truth is a verifiable hypothesis"? I think what Jon is getting at is that many people still feel like they can verify the truth of their religious beliefs in the empirical sense. These are the people who still cling to what we now call the Enlightenment--the age of natural laws and the reducibility of all truth to a finite set of axiomatic givens. Science has matured beyond that stage, to wit: Einstein's 'theories' vs. Newton's 'laws'. Could it be time that religion made the same paradigm shift? The "fact" you mentioned that PI is irrational is only an abstract truth. It has no basis in empiricism. As Bertrand Russell observed, "Mathematics is the subject in which we don't know what we're talking about nor whether what we're saying is true." The idea that PI is three is actually an empirical insight (admittedly crude). Jon, I don't know if you're familiar with the work of your compatriot, N. T. Wright. He and Marcus Borg have collaborated on a very nice book which somewhat echoes the themes we've been discussing called "The Meaning ofJesus: Two Visions". Wright has a more traditional view and Marcus a more revisionist one. Your remark about the need for a factual basis for faith being owed to the Enlightenment is very interesting. At one point the the book Wright argues "... if Christianity is only going to be allowed to rent an apartment in the Enlightenment's housing scheme, and on its terms, we are, to borrow Paul's phrase, of all people the most to be pitied." (Like that one Munro?) And yet, as you observed, his very need to "prove" the factual basis of Jesus' resurrection has its philosophical basis in that very Enlightenment. John, I agree that the discussion of who wrote the Gospels and why would be very interesting and I would probably like to participate, but maybe it belongs in its own thread? | ||
| Scooper |
James, PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference - and is measurably NOT three. A circle can be drawn on a flat surface with a tack, a string, and a pencil. That's empirical. That PI is an irrational number is a matter of mathematical proof. Now mathematics is the only way that unaided reason can encounter absolute truth. This is because mathematics is a closed system that only talks about itself. Bertrand Russell was wrong about mathematics (and proven so by Goedel), among other things. I like your Wright quote. But I also like American Revolution patriot Tom Paine's observation in his "The Age of Reason" that while one must believe personal revelation, one is not bound to believe hearsay (similar to the Doubting Thomas position from the NT). | ||
| Munro Williams |
As I wrote earlier, I have no problem with the Enlightenment. Indeed, I'm quite enthusiastic about it. I think Wright's imagery is pretty weak. He's trying to validate belief in the absence of sufficient evidence, methinks, and if he's just going to weasel out by talking about uncertainty, well, I think he doesn't have the cajones to call nonsense by its real name. If Christ didn't really rise from the dead then Christianity is gibberish. That's Paul's position, that's my position, and that's a Rationalist position. No contradiction here. This obviously being the case, how in the world can Christianity be seen as renting an apartment in some philosophical housing scheme? I like to shoot muzzleloaders, so about all I can say about the Wright quote is: "All powder and no ball." | ||
| James Blodgett |
Perhaps Christ rose from the dead. The problem is that there is a very viable alternative hypothesis, that he did not. First, historiography was very different then. In Shakespear's Julius Caesar, when Caesar dies they speak of all kinds of weird portents and omens. A note in my text said that Shakespear had found this material in history books. Weird things were expected when a great man died. Supernatural phenomena were more plausible, therefore less likely to be ruled out. Second, when a charismatic group suffers a terminal disappointment, there is a strong tendency to reinterpret things so that the group can continue. Note the sociological study, "When Prophesy Fails," participant observation of a flying saucer cult. The world was supposed to end, and flying saucers were supposed to rescue cult members, at a scheduled time. When this prediction did not come to pass they decided that their faith had averted the disaster. Another example is Socrates. He was too joyously secular for resurrection myths, but his followers kept him alive anyway, in the literary form of the Socratic dialog. The idea that God became man is a powerful expression of God's love for us, of God's involvement with us and concern for us. If an omnipotent God became man, it makes sense that he would die. Man is mortal. It also makes sense that part of him would not die, since God is eternal. I am not denying this, but given a plausible alternative hypothesis God must understand that I can not be absolutely sure of it in the way some Christians want me to be. | ||
| James Stafford |
In the euphoria of the technological and scientific bonanza of the Age of Enlightenment, many people were tempted to believe that all truth was reducible to scientific or historical facts. They began to think of the world as a closed system of cause and effect, operating under fixed natural laws. The only things real were measurable--matter, space, energy, time. This world view is of course limited, like all world views. Don't judge Wright on just the small snip I quoted, Munro. Check out the context. You and he probably agree quite a bit, I would guess. What really sticks in Wright's craw is the idea that Christianity might be viewed as just another religion, as has become the modern secular world view, whose inspiration stems ultimately from the Enlightenment. Your statement that Jesus' ressurection must be factual for Christianity to be meaningful is far from a rational position. It is the same false dichotomy held by fundamentalists--believers and nonbelievers. I don't believe in the ressurrection, but I don't think that robs Christianity of its meaning. Furthermore even if I believed it, it wouldn't add anything for me. I'm simply not impressed with a deity that does "tricks with bones". That there is a universe at all is enough miracle for me. John, I didn't have to rely on Russell, he's just very quotable. I could have used most any mathematician since Hilbert. I don't think anyone can doubt Russell was a preminent mathematical mind. However, I would agree with you about Russell's socialism, and his polemical attitude toward Christianity. And far from proving Russell's quip wrong, Goedel's work recognized and demonstrated the limitations of closed axiomatic systems. Exactly what the physical universe is like mathematics doesn't say. Nor does it even get concerned. The value of a set of axioms is not its truth but the richness of its predicate. However, even though mathematics is just an elaborate mind-game, it just so happens that it is a rich source of quantitative models that physicists find useful in trying to describe the universe. So the modern view is strictly antiPlatonic, in that the reality of the ideals is a mere fancy--elaborately logical fancy. But to the empirical physicist, it doesn't matter how beautiful the theory implied by the axioms, if it can't be brought into agreement with verifiable, repeatable, quantitative sensory measurement. I am personally very sorry that the SuperCollider wasn't funded. I would like to see how far the physicists can go towards a "theory of everything". Perhaps the ideat that there is such a thing knowable by the human mind is the "faith" of a modern physicist. And I wish them luck, but I suspect they're chasing a holy grail. Literally. In fact, this faith in the existence of humanly describable physical law is tantamount to a religious faith in the sense put forth by Spinoza or Einstein. Now, the physicist has bridges, airplanes, and atom bombs to back up his faith. Similarly the Zen master or mystic has an equanimity of mind that demonstrates the genuineness of his insight. In fact most people have some religious faith, whether or not they would call it that, that provides them with the basis for living decent, productive, balanced and wholesome lives. Some of these people even have a concept of God or gods that is in no way superstitious. One would also have to categorize strong atheism as a faith. I think that when someone says "I believe in biblical creationism by faith," they cheapen the term. Such beliefs are obvious prejudices. Faith, on the other hand, ought to apply to more considered and sophisticated beliefs. And I think that a litmus test for whether a world view is based on faith or prejudice is its means of propagation. If it relies on bullying, guilt (read emotional blackmail), deceipt, or ridicule it ought to tell you something. | ||
| Kevin |
My apologies! I started this thread then stayed away for 2 weeks. By way of update, I'll repeat here a post I made to an ex-fundy list I'm on: > Theres been some discussion lately about evangelism > and debate. With that in > mind, I'd ike to present the following question: > > If someone could provide reasonable, and plausible, > but not necessarily > "convincing" answers, to all of your questions about > God and the Bible, would > you offer your allegiance to the Christian religion ? [name removed]: It's funny you should ask this question, and in this way. For me, the answer is yes. For the last couple of weeks or so, I have come to realize that I again believe the message of Christ. I am still sorting through it all, but here's what I have come up with so far. First, as a believer I was lead to believe that the evidence for the Bible and for Christ was so overwhelming that any honest person who looks at the evidence will be compelled to believe. I think now that this is not the case (doh). Eight months ago I realized that a lot of the arguments I had accepted (in favor of Christianity) are bad arguments, and pursuit of answers to Bible difficulties lead me to sites like the Secular Web, and my faith crashed and burned. Yet I was always convinced that there is a Creator; I could not believe otherwise given what I know of organic and biochemistry, cellular biology etc. I have said all along that those who assert atheism or abiogenseis as scientific are abusing and misrepresenting science. Yet I thought I was irrevocably done with the God of the Bible. The first insight (and a critical one) I had that began my journey back was picked up while visiting the Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua (www.dogchurch.org), namely, that it is possible to believe the message of Christ without claiming to have all the answers. I had never looked at it that way before, since the apologists I had read seemed to imply that certitude was a virtue of some kind. Next, in preparing to defend my departure in discussions with my former pastor, I examined the kinds of arguments as those presented at the Secular Web more critically than I had previously; I realized that there were very few arguments that could not be responded to reasonably. Some arguments there were just plain bad, and some (I was unaware) had been responded to satisfactorily in the past (to my satisfaction, anyway). Another factor is entirely personal: I believe that God remained faithful to me despite my being unfaithful; a succession of events transpired that I can't honestly dismiss as coincidence. One example is when money ran very short recently and I needed a specific dollar amount within a 2 day period just to keep things going; that very dollar amount came on the first of those two days. I cannot account for anyone else's claims to not have seen God do anything in their lives, but neither can I deny or ignore what has happened in my own. Looking back, I see a clear pattern over more than two decades, and there is only so much that I am willing to attribute to chance or coincidence. As to the Bible, I freely admit that there are some passages that I just don't understand. Yet there are some that I didn't understand previously that I think I do now. Overall I think that the Bible has a very remarkable quality in that those who are disposed to believe will find sufficient reason in the Bible to believe, but those who are disposed to disbelieve will find enough apparent problems to warrant disbelief. Upon reflecting on how Jesus and the apostles preached, I don't recall them whacking anyone over the head with the Old Testament, or twisting anyone's arm. They spoke to those who wanted to hear, and left those who didn't alone. I don't recall them engaging in debates with potential converts. In other words, I think that the message of the Bible is sufficient to make belief reasonable, but not so overwhelming as to drag anyone kicking and screaming to somewhere they don't want to go. I am still sorting a lot of things out, as I said. I certainly don't consider myself a fundamentalist, even if some here would assert that believing the Bible is necessarily fundamentalism. I don't even claim to have a lot of answers at this point. All I know is that I believe God has spoken to me where I'm at in a way that I can't ignore, and it would be the height of arrogance and perversity for me to ignore what I have seen, read and experienced. BTW, before the avalanche of arguments begin, let me say one thing. It is not my job to convince anyone. For those who honestly want answers or resolution, information is out there. For those whose focus is to tell me why I'm wrong, I don't think either of us will be convinced, so why bother? Call me recalcitrant, deluded, delusional, neurotic, brainwashed, whatever; I don't give a rat. My only regret is that I think that this will drive a wedge between me and people here whom I have grown to like. | ||
| Munro Williams |
James, Show me a dictator and I'll show you a mystic, or vice versa. Zen is merely blind acceptance of arbitrary authority, the unknowing indoctrinating the unknowable unknown to the subjugated ignorant. Read up on Suzuki Shozan, the Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Shogunates, as well as modern Japanese thought and you'll see the world's first thought police state utilizing Zen as one of its major ideological justifications. I live in Japan, so I've got to deal with Zen every day. I mean EVERY DAY. The Enlightenment is the reason why I keep saying that "the West is Best." It was the first time in history that ideas were allowed to stand on their own virtue. Yes, there has always been manipulation, deceit, blackmail, bullying, torture, and a host of other evils, but in the West it is understood viscerally to be evil and requires extremely convoluted rationalization. In Japan no theoretical ethical justification was necessary. Whatever Is Strong Is Good. This thinking was just routine until the Americans occupied the country, and is now making a rather chilling comeback. An ethical difference of so great a degree is an essential difference in kind. There's no comparison. I really have no use for mystics of any stripe, and that goes for hillbilly rattlesnake handlers as well as Hindu cobra kissers. It's institutionalized insanity regardless of geography or religious justification. Mysticism is the destruction of the rational processes. John referred to Christ as "logos," from whence comes our word "logic." In essence, the Gospel was propagated through the Hellenistic intellectual universe, which also created geometry and the principle of displacement, among other things. | ||
| Munro |
To All: As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be true, that it is the record of God's revelation to man. This does not mean that it is exhaustively true. The Bible won't help you to figure out how to raise the cash for a down payment on a house. The Bible is too often used as a totemic device, a series of mystical incantations of magical power, which it is not. I don't think that view is very Biblical. Yes, Paul was able to shake off a poisonous snake that fastened itself to his arm back during the Apostolic Age, but to use this to justify snakle handling I think is tempting the Lord, at worst, and insane, at best. | ||
| Rich Daniel |
Kevin wrote: "...I was always convinced that there is a Creator; I could not believe otherwise given what I know of organic and biochemistry, cellular biology etc. I have said all along that those who assert atheism or abiogenseis as scientific are abusing and misrepresenting science...." I do not assert that abiogenesis has been proven by science to occur. I do assert that abiogenesis can be and has been studied by science, and that there is no valid argument for the impossibility (or even the improbability) of abiogenesis. I assume you've read the articles about abiogenesis at infidels.org and talkorigins.org. I'm curious how your arguments address those issues, and also whether your skepticism extends to common descent. I suggest you either start a new thread on this subject, or email me. | ||
| Kevin |
Rich, I don't have time for an extended discussion on that. (Shoot, it took me 2 weeks to get back to the thread I started.) My views are similar to Michael Behe from what I've heard of him. For me the biggest issue is the complexity and interdependence of cellular processes in the simplest cell; we can't evolve, say, a metabolic pathway in several incrememtal steps before we have a functioning one. In living things that have been observed, a genome is replicated through the functioning of several proteins, yet proteins are transcribed from the genome. We haven't observed one without the other. (As far as an "RNA world", I regard that as grasping at straws given the limited observed catalytic ability of rRNA.) | ||
| Kevin |
BTW, with regard to the Secular Web, I haven't read their stuff on abiogenesis, but since their stuff is polemical in nature I prefer to form my opinions on the issue from all the facts I can gather, not just the ones they cite. | ||
| James Blodgett |
The simplest cellular process is complex now, after four billion years. Are you stating that their could not possibly be a simpler self-replicating process? The RNA world seems entirely plausible to me. | ||
| James Blodgett |
Incidently, Kevin, I was touched by your mention of VCBA as helping your faith. I said something a few weeks ago about the way of BS, perhaps it actually works. In a way it is helping my faith too. On one level I am still a grumpy agnostic, but I am getting more comfortable with the thought that there might actually be a God out there. That thought is too pale to count as faith among born-again Christians, but I am beginning to hope that it may count as faith with God. | ||
| Kevin |
James, I'm not asserting that there could not *possibly* be a simpler life form than we are familiar with arise accidentally by chance. But we certainly haven't found any evidence of one, and even if we did it would have to exist in a way that is fundamentally contrary to our understanding of biochemistry. That being the case, I think it's fair even to say that its existence must be accepted on faith --even blind faith. :-) We've gone from the warm little pond to the clay surface to underground hydrothermal vents for the origin of life. Seems like so much guesswork to me. James, how you describe where you're at sounds to me not so much as a set of beliefs or a lack thereof, but as a state of open-mindedness. I believe that God reveals things to those who honestly want to know. I hope that you will keep questioning. None of us have it all figured out yet. | ||
| James Blodgett |
A simple self replicating molecule is highly plausible, for two reasons. The first is that we are here. The second is the structure of DNA, which immediately suggests a mechanism of replication. In fact, current DNA by itself is not a simple self-replicating molecule. Current DNA needs protein machinery to assist in its job of replication. So does RNA, but Gerald Joyce and others have demonstrated that RNA can perform many of the catalytic functions of protein. See Jim J. Aloor's abstract at http://mama.indstate.edu/users/stuart/GenEv/aloorab2.html. Fundamentalists used to say, "you can't make life in a test tube." Now that it has been done, or at least close enough to demonstrate high plausibility, they change the argument. Making fun of the several attempts to find a self-replicating system reveals a profound misunderstanding of the science and the theology involved. You might as well make fun of Edison for trying thousands of filaments when developing the light bulb. [How many fundamentalists does it take to invent the light bulb? No number; the light bulb is impossible.] As for theology, the problem is not to prove precisely how life formed. I rather suspect that there are dozens of possibilities, just as modern technology has many ways to make a light bulb. Most of the theological impact comes from the simple demonstration of plausibility. A plausible alternative hypothesis means that life is not a proof of God. | ||
| James Blodgett |
If God created the universe with carbon atoms, hydrocarbon molecules, and so forth, because he realized the possibilities, because he realized they would evolve into life, I think we can say that God created life even if he did not work a specific miracle to implement that creation. I like this story because it gives us both God and science. However, I have to admit that the necessity of a God to create and order the universe does not work as a proof of God either. Apparent teleology in the structure of the universe can be explained by various many-universe theories. If a creator is necessary, who created God? I end up appreciating God as a possibility. | ||
| Kevin |
James, It sounds to me like the experiments used artificial situations and still got nowhere near what is needed for life to arise spontaneously, even RNA "life". A few e.g.'s: "This 5'-Phe-SS-RNA was then reacted with a substrate consisting of biotinylated AMP-Methionine..." How, in the promordial soup or whatever, did the biotinylated AMP-Met get there? "Succesive rounds of selection followed by amplification generated/evolved a pool of RNA with a much higher peptidyly transferase activity than the original pool." I thought that the whole point was to show autocatalytic self-replication of RNA. Peptidyl transferase activity has to do with protein synthesis. "This peptidyl activity of the in-vitro selected species were able to utilize Leu, Phe, as well as Met derived substrates, this lack of specificity with respect to the amino acid is a feature necessary for a generalized protein synthesizing enzyme. " Nobody has ever, to my knowledge, provided anything more than a blind guess as to what kind of environment could facilitate the dehydration synthesis of a polypeptide in an aqueous environment (the "clay surface" after all is a guess and is inadmissable if underwater hydrothermal vents is the now the environment du jour). Not to mention how the amino acids could take on their zwitterion state in such an environment. Or how they got there (synthesizing even one *biologically useful* amino acid in a test tube is a real pain), or how the issue of stereochemistry is resolved. I might also add that this contrived system was only able to utilize three of the 20 amino acids. "In the second paper Joyce et. al (2) have utilized in-vitro evolution to generate a population of RNA molecules that catalyze the template directed ligation of RNA substrates." What kind of template was that? A template for RNA synthesis is preexisting DNA or possibly RNA, so this doesn't address the issue at all. " partially randomized population of ligases was generated from a ligase that was formerly altered so as to optimize function and provide the appropriate start site for T7 polymerase. " Polymerase of course is protein. These folks are giving themselves some of the finished products that supposedly were the result of these modeled "random" events. "This population was then subjected to a few cycles of selection (based on their ability of ligation) and purification followed by amplification..." Translation: There were a few cycles of removing these putative biomolecules from the organic soup so that these "spontaneous reactions" could proceed (they couldn't otherwise), and production of a high number of copies (avoiding the increased mathematical improbability of several of these molecules spontaneously forming at the same time next to each other). "...so as to select and populate the pool with species capable of ligation without giving advantage to fast ligating species." Another artificial manipulation in the attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of everything occurring spontaneously. "The results showed that the RNA's thus evolved in-vitro had enhanced catalytic and amplification rates as a consequence of mutations that accumulated during the process of in-vitro evolution. " It looks to me like these workers engaged in creation (even if the results were extremely limited) which at the end was termed evolution. They did not demonstrate anywhere near the full range of catalytic functions that would be necessary for RNA to autoreplicate. Shoot, they didn't even address how the nucleotides themselves could have occurred. Personally, I have to dismiss this as a lot of guesswork, manipulation, evasion of several issues and, I think, a case of the tail wagging the dog. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a young earth creationist and I don't deny speciation. But neither do I feel compelled to accept what some people assert as fact despite biochemical considerations that are persistently avoided. You said: "Fundamentalists used to say, "you can't make life in a test tube." Now that it has been done, or at least close enough to demonstrate high plausibility, they change the argument." The famed Miller-Urey experiment came nowhere near creating life in a test tube. They contrived a system which produced a few of the many required building blocks. It would be like coming across a few silicon wafers and concluding that your PC could have happened accidentally. (And the simplest living cell would always be a higher order design than a PC due to its abilities to adapt to the environment, self-diagnose, self-repair and self-replicate.) | ||
| James Blodgett |
A magician claims a miraculous ability to tell time. I look beneath the table and glimpse gears, springs, and escapements. I think I know how the trick is done. You question my claim because I do not have an engineering diagram of his clock. Joyce and his friends are just getting started, and already they have demonstrated something you seemed to question recently, RNA that can perform many of the catalytic functions of protein. They are looking for a simple RNA that can catalyze its own production. (The fact that they use only three amino acids addresses simplicity, a point in their favor.) No, they do not have the complete picture. They have enough to make it sound plausible to me. My position does not require proof, it requires plausibility. To really demonstrate everything occurring naturally you need an ingredient that they do not have: four billion years. Suppose in ten years they have a complete, working system. What will your position be then? Suppose their path is a dead end. To prove that life is a proof of God, you need to show that every such path is a dead end. I'll bet on the biologists. Whether or not I am right, until I am proven wrong I hold the winning hand before a reasonable jury, reasonable doubt. DNA and Darwin made it plausible. Making it implausible again will be a job, albeit things could come out that way. If God set this up, he gave us our clues and our lack of clues. I like to think that we are worshiping God, relating to God, when we try to figure them out. | ||
| Kevin |
James, Of all the professors I've had in the biological sciences (microbiology major here), only one tried to assert that science supported abiogenesis. Coincidentally or not, this professor was avoided by most people because his lectures were long on polemic and short on useful information. Wherever you're getting the idea that DNA or Darwin have made abiogenesis credible, I suggest that it's more polemic than serious science. Real science deals with the observable and testable. For that reason, I reject both abiogenesis and young earth creationism. The kind of posturing we see from, say, E.O. Wilson or Richard Dawkins (or Henry Morris & Duane Gish) is an abuse of science for ideological reasons, IMO. For me, it isn't so much a matter of what might one day seem plausible; it's a matter of what evidence we have in hand now. I'm not trying to *prove* that God created life, or anything of the sort. I'm just saying which I find more plauible given what we *know* (as opposed to conjecture) about living things. | ||
| James Blodgett |
Socrates: I have been bugging God to install a router so I could get into the debates at VCBC. God tells me it won't work. Part of my mortal act was to start from ignorance. We are plugged into all knowledge up here. It is like being a fundamentalist. (laugh) It is sort of like being connected to the Internet. So today I will be the moderator. I will introduce the two mortal/fictional protagonists, Smarticus, who will support the evolutionary position, and Dopeius, who will defend the creationist position. (Smart--icus? Dope--ius? I think I smell a rhetorician.) Smarticus: If you run evolution back to the beginning of life, there must have been a first reproducing system that fell together by chance. Darwin: That is not exactly the way I said it. Socrates: Charlie! The mortals are debating our theories again. Darwin: Again? Right now 237 debates simultaneously. Socrates: See you at the club. Smarticus: For evolution to work you need a reproducing system. There. . .there must have been a first one. Dopeius: Created by God Smarticus: Perhaps created by God. Perhaps it fell together by chance. Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Smarticus: I am postulating a simple reproducing system, one that could fall together by chance. Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Smarticus: Consider fire. Given fire, fuel, and air, you get more fire. Fire can be started by lightening. It is too simple to evolve, but it shows that a reproducing system can be simple. Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Smarticus: Scientists are looking for a simple reproducing system. They have had promising results. Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Smarticus: Hello? Can you hear me? Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. (Pause) Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Socrates: Ah--here it is: "They haven' t demonstrated a simple reproducing system." Smarticus: Right. We are postulating it. Scientists are looking for it. This is what motivates Joyce and his friends, and the artificial life people, and most of the speculation about life on other planets. Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Socrates: If it is not proven, you must admit it may turn out to be impossible. Smarticus: Agreed. But we think it is possible. We are looking for it. It is like a Holy Grail. Science sometimes works that way, searching for something we think is there. Dopeius: Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Life is too complex to fall together by chance. Socrates: Can somebody shut that thing off? | ||
| Scooper |
Groepius: If scientists someday find that the self-organization of non-equilibrium systems can produce biological life, would it necessarily mean there is no God? Moepius: No, there could still be a God. But He/She/It/They would not be necessary for the existence of physical, biological life. Our bodies could have sprung from some purely physical, mindless process. That is to say, the existence of life would be prior to the existence of mind. Groepius: Not quite. The existence of life would be independent of the existence of mind. There could be a God, but life would not depend on God for its creation. Moepius: Ah. If the existence of biological life were prior to the existence of mind, then there could be no mind without biological life, and hence no God, because God (who is mind itself) would have to be biological. Groepius: Right. But spontaneous emergence of life says nothing at all about the origin of mind. So even if life could have emerged spontaneously, it says nothing about the nature of God. It doesn't even prove that God did not create life. It just says that God need not have been the sole causative agent of life. But God still could have been. Moepius: So where does that leave mind? Is mind created or uncreated? Do we each have a mind of our own, or do we in some sense partake of a universal mind, the Mind of God, as it were? Is this the Mind that kicked off the Universe and guided the evolution of biological life to provide a home for mind in the cosmos? Or is something else going on here? Groepius: I think the answer is 42. | ||
| Kevin |
Hacky: Good news! I was awarded a grant for my work by the Faith's Against Reason Trust. I'm attempting to show that it's possible for pigs to fly. Sack: You're kidding. Hacky: Not at all. It's really not that implausible if you consider it very carefully, have a great deal of knowledge, and aren't hindered by bias. Of course, I was turned down for a grant by the Ministry for Integration of Religion and Evidence. Typically reactionary of them! If people like that ran things, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. Sack: Pigs didn't fly in the Dark Ages, did they? Hacky: Very funny. I'm talking about a serious scientific undertaking here. We have already done some preliminary studies on the aerodynamics. Our work shows that pigs are actually fairly aerodynamic. It only takes a few minor adjustments: shave the pig, bob its ears and amputate its legs. Sack: Er, pigs are heavy. Don't have wings either. Hacky: Science has the answers, my boy. We've already fiddled with the genes responsible for weight gain in pigs, and have successfully bred pigs that remain under 25 pounds. Sure, they can't digest their food properly, but we're close to a diet that will get around that. We forsee similar solutions for the wings also. We've inserted into the pig genome the genes specifying the wings and pectoral muscles of the Andean condor. Right now the wings grow out of the head, but that will be resolved once the pig genome is entirely mapped. Sack: Don't flying animals have very light bones? Hacky: Ye of little faith. Daily injections of parathyroid hormone lighten the bones considerably. We have a slight problem with the pigs dying from electrolyte imbalance and muscle spasms, but that's just a matter of adjusting the DNA also. Sack: One question. Why would you even want a pig to fly? Hacky: It's a matter of progress. We can either remain entrenched where we are, and wait for natural selection to get around to us, or else we can be proactive and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. The quest for knowledge elevates us from our savage past. This is a matter of life and death, and we must be ever viligant against the forces of fear, superstition and ignorance. Sack: I'm not sure I understand. Hacky: That's OK. Some of us just take a bit longer to grasp the complexities. It doesn't mean that you're at the shallow end of the gene pool (smile). | ||
| James Blodgett |
Prophecy coming to pass. . . right here at VCBC! The time has come the walrus said, to talk of many things. Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings. And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings. --Lewis Carrol Is he prescient, or what? And now to the deep theological question. Is the wing meat kosher? | ||
| Munro Williams |
"Life is too complex to fall together by chance... ad infinitum, ad nauseum." Is it really possible for impersonal time and chance to produce personality? | ||
| James Blodgett |
Can a bunch of switches turned on and off even a trillion, in any pattern can a bunch of bouncing electrons and chemicals give us this feeling of now, of here, of real? But look in a microscope A massive neural network designed to do that stuff Why surprise that we feel it? --It's the old mind\body problem Maybe the proof of spirit is as close as our awareness or is it illusion? | ||
| Munro Williams |
I cannot see a spider or its web without marvelling at the complexity. Even a newly hatched frog has a beauty and grace and perfection of design which, when I'm not distracted by mundane routine, floors me. How anyone can deny the Supreme Creative Intelligence is beyond me. | ||
| Kevin |
James: "Is the wing meat kosher?" It is unless you're Prince Charles. | ||
| James Blodgett |
Socrates: I'm back again. This time with a team effort. Tim Russell: We are bootlegging on The Blessed Mother's channel to Medjugorje, using a very-small-mass-displacement miracle in a modem in Sarajevo. Lawrence Finklestein: The precedents are clear. Common good, small effects, no personal gain, nobody will believe it anyway. We are in only a little bit of trouble, as long as nobody down there puts out any press releases. Socrates: God of course knows everything. He's a good guy. (You knew that.) I wouldn't ask him to be on board with something like this, but he did hint that Heaven has been getting stuffy lately. Finklestein: We have to be careful about what we say. Russell: It is a one-way link, so you can't get back in this way. A free coke to anybody who can hack in up here. Finklestein: Now, that might really get us in trouble. Socrates: The Internet has been frustrating. 90% of the scientists are alive, etc. We should change our policy. Heinlein's Martian have a nice approach. Heinlein thinks I am crazy when I say that. St. Peter: All right guys, you've had your fun. Everybody downstairs, just a minor adjustment so you don't believe any of this. --beep-- | ||
| James Blodgett |
Blodgett: You owe me a coke Russell: How did you get in? Blodgett: Come on now. "Heaven" on Geocities. Indexed on Yahoo. I'll bet you set that up. | ||
| Tracy Watson-Brown (jael) |
Back to the original question. No. But that's not the point. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
And the point is???? Let me guess. The Bible speaks to mythos the truth of the soul and the subconscious. The question of this thread addresses the Bible as if it were logos the truth of the rational mind and the ego. Mythos cannot be proved by means of logos. On the other hand, logos cannot by itself provide meaning in our lives. Only mythos can do that. And so the question of whether anyone can prove the Resurrection "really" happened transmutes more fruitfully into, "What must I do to experience the Resurrected Christ in my life and soul?" | ||
| Anna Mills Raimondi (wings) |
Verry interesting...but I see a problem in the unreasonable assumtion that our very language can or does give us reliable perception of life...is object(tivity) just a mental trick ? all words are symbols and perhaps the debate itself is proof of the existance of the resurrection...or else what are you talking about ? The exaple of being "born" really hooked me because I am currently on a quest to find my birthfamily and have discovered that there are hundreds of thousands of people who do not have any of the corraborating evidence you speak of... I may not be a "mystic" but I am an artist (a similar tribe)and my proof of the ressuection is in the life I am today as apposed to the life I was before I was ressurected ... | ||
| Woody |
Wasn't it Bultmann who said "faith that requires proof isn't faith at all"? That isn't very satisfying. What would proof of the resurrection look like? | ||
| James Blodgett |
What would proof look like? Part of God's problem may be that a perfect, unchallengeable proof is impossible. God could give a good-enough-for-most-purposes proof/demonstration by marching down from heaven with a choir of angels, but I am glad that that is not His style. I call this God's problem, but He should be capable of transcending it. It is really our problem. | ||
| Woody |
Part of God's problem may be that a perfect, unchallengeable proof is impossible. I agree. There's no way the resurrection can be proven empirically. We walk by faith, and not by sight. I love Mark's gospel, because the shorter ending to chapter 16 leaves us with the timeless question, "Do you believe?" | ||
| Richard Adler |
The idea of a resurrection within Judaism was obviously around well before the time of Jesus – the Sadducees rejected the idea whereas the Pharisees embraced it. Its concept was largely spiritual in the sense of God’s presence continuing on from Abraham to Isacc through to David and so on. This is the idea Jesus largely referred to when speaking of the resurrection and was able to cite scripture quite credibly to his scoffers (the Sadducees) and often sent them away scratching their heads. Jesus was the resurrection in the sense of being a continuation of God’s presence right through from Abraham to present day – a physical literal interpretation was not meant. Jesus’ grasp of Judaism was not meant to form a new religion but to intensify the spirit held within an old one. Those outside of Judaism perhaps understandably took a literal view and found the idea of a physical resurrection quite alien – unless of course you took Greek mythology, transubstantiate it into some sort of literal truth and then create a deity of human substance. The following passage from Luke 20 vs 36 illustrates the idea of the resurrection as a purely spiritual concept. “…..and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection” The faith therefore required is not a belief in the occurrence of an event 2,000 years ago but through an affirmation in the continued presence of God who resides within us today. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Richard Adler, I'm dubious of your claim that a literal, physical resurrection was not meant. I cite a text that predates the Gospels -- Job 19:25-27
This is probably the only mention of a physical resurrection prior to the Maccabean period, but there it is. For my part, I think transcendalizing the Resurrection away from physicality -- making it purely "spiritual" dumbs Christianity down to conform to the currently popular (although rationally proven false) doctrine that all truth is accessible to pure rationality. It makes Christianity too tame, too safe, too powerless to change our lives. I maintain that the Resurrection each of us is "hyper-physical" involving not just the Resurrection of the person after death, but the Redemption of all of Space and Time as well. I assert that Christ's Resurrection, the model for the Resurrection of us all, was this sort of hyper-physical, and as such, could only be maintained in this Universe for a short while without changing it from the Universe God Gives to Us into something else, possibly the Universe in which God gathers us into him/her self. This is a more extraordinary claim than that which started this thread, and requires a more extraordinary proof. But we will all have the opportunity to see it for ourselves, eventually. | ||
| Richard Adler |
John, Since the formulation of church creeds, largely based on Aristotelian rationale, it has been a requirement the literal belief of an incarnate deity be accepted along with a literal belief in the virgin birth, associated miracles, and Resurrection. A logical rational thought process was adopted in the setting of church dogma based on the pillars of early Greek thought. Through this process we find evolving a series of complicated 'formulas' on atonement, Tran substitution, remission of sins, the trinity and so on. These terms would have certainly been 'gobble de gook' to not only Jews but also the early Christians whose faith was certainly more 'spiritual'. Christendom, in its use of external power through the Inquisition, had powerfully structured medieval society. People were literally put to the rack for not adhering to literal statements of belief - many recanted and were 'saved' but their hearts were not altered. I would think it has been a truly tame Christianity that has relied on external means by which to assert its authority - either through physical force or later through guilt and the effects of 'eternal damnation'. The true force within Christianity has therefore not rested in its creeds but within the 'doubters' who, through the centuries, have challenged its very structure and by varying degrees reformed its basis. The resurrection is an experience gained not only through the death of old ideas or ways but in the adoption of a new life - a continuing cycle in the birth of every moment. It's a tenuous path because it requires a self-discipline and ego-less state few of us ever acquire. The experience is not one doomed to the archives and related through folk-lore, tradition or dusty words between old covers - it relates to now, this very moment. It is an awareness that challenges us all - Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. There is no one I've yet met who in someway cannot be a part of or 'in tune' with this awareness - it is often the simple and child-like who best portray it. The 'Jihad', open to us all, is the battle we place on ourselves in the truth and integrity of our being. | ||
| Woody |
It seems the discussion has shifted significantly from the original question, which regarded proof of the resurrection. Now the question seems to be nature of the resurrection. Richard's observation that Jesus was the resurrection in the sense of being a continuation of Godâs presence right through from Abraham to present day ö a physical literal interpretation was not meant... seems very unsatisfying to me much in the same way the Jesus Seminar folks want to explain the resurrection as a "dawning awareness" that Jesus was a life "full of God." I don't understand how this new awareness would embolden scores of early Christians to die for their faith, nor how it would sustain a movement some 2,000 years. | ||
| Richard Adler |
Woody, There seems little point in discussing the proof or other of the Resurrection as it really comes down to a matter of belief and irrelevant in terms of 'faith'. One can also enter into a debate about the authenticity of the Turin Shroud and find strong scientific evidence dating it to the 14th.C as a clever painting. Sindonologists will seemingly go to any length to prove it as actually the shroud of Jesus - they appear to differ very little in their style from 'Creationists' in their pseudoscience. From the evidence given I personally view the shroud as a fraud. My point being we tend to filter only the evidence into our minds suited to our particular beliefs - the greater our dogmatism the bigger our filter. The scientific method offers objectivity as close to unbiased as I've found. Its sometimes reductionist approach, however, can be a little unsatisfying when pondering 'the big picture'. So, for me at least, I find a satisfaction beyond science and its reasoning in a God which encompasses both. Before God I know my inadequacy but dare to search his truth. The experience of a non-physical, spiritual resurrection is perhaps viewed by some as a little 'dumber than dumb', in some way 'tame' or perhaps too mystical for comfort. Christianity as a religion has survived for 2,000 years not because of its early martyrs but due to it riding on the coat sleeves of temporal, political power. Name any religion and I can probably find any number of martyrs for its cause. The power that has both propelled and reformed Christianity has been its sense of community, love of neighbour and love of God. There can be no adequate intercessor or intermediary between a man and his God. The relationship is as personal as a father to a son - it is in this sense I see J.C. as the 'Way'. The approach to God as made by Jesus enlivens in me a spirit to question both the secular and the religious - those who know me would not describe me as tame. My hope is I'm given the strength and integrity to live fully the truth as found within scripture. My guide is a spiritual awakening whose growth enters into a physical presence - all very real and quite tangible. | ||
| Woody |
There seems little point in discussing the proof or other of the Resurrection as it really comes down to a matter of belief and irrelevant in terms of 'faith'. You'll have to define the distinction between "belief" and "faith." Though I agree that the physical resurrection cannot be proven, this statement of yours makes no sense. Christianity as a religion has survived for 2,000 years not because of its early martyrs but due to it riding on the coat sleeves of temporal, political power. If political power could make or break Christianity, the persecution early Christianity withstood for the first 250+ years following Christ would certainly have extinguished the movement. No question that every movement has its martyrs. If you're trying to pick a fight there, you're picking with the wrong person. But to explain Christianity's development away by crediting political support is weak. | ||
| Richard Adler |
Woody, It is helpful to draw a distinction between 'belief' and 'faith' although the differences may appear subtle it is important to understand their divide. A dictionary meaning of belief is, "the acceptance of a doctrine etc. ones religion." Faith has a definition of, "complete trust, unquestioning confidence". For me, the Gospel stories relate the idea of faith as opposed to belief - many people of varying beliefs were cured by Jesus on the basis of their faith. Their apprehension of Christ was sufficient in terms of making them well (or whole) - wether they were Jew or Gentile. Faith appears to transcend belief and on this basis is available to all. Belief is based on the reasoning of our mind arrived at through premise, deduction and assumption. Our beliefs see through a glass darkly and prone to distortion whereas faith is sure, rock-solid and unchanging. Men of faith once believed the earth to be flat and God in his heaven - their perceptions were limited but their connection wasn't. I find it best to understand Christianity as a religion and not always subject to its founder. Christianity was weakened through its political aspiration - as an institution it lived by the sword and died by the sword. Many parts of early Christianity were suppressed, have not always visibly survived but remain - again, its truth is made known and will continue. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Perhaps this may help: I consider belief to be the act of holding to a set of opinions. I consider faith to be a state of being in which we live and trust in some (perhaps unstated) ultimate concern. Anyway, Richard, I agree with the last paragraph of your Nov 21 posting. But I offer myself as an example of a person who believes the Resurrection really happened, but who doesn't care about how Jesus was conceived, and who is agnostic with respect to the other associated miracles. That is to say, I think one need believe in only two miracles to call oneself a Christian as a noun, rather than Christian as an adjective -- the Incarnation and the Resurrection. As for proof, it seems that both Woody and I are impressed that something extraordinary motivated the first Christians, and we think it was the Resurrection. Not enough proof for a conviction, I suppose. I agree with Thomas Paine that you are not obliged to believe in the Resurrection based on hearsay. But if you have some experiential encounter with the Risen Christ, then you may be stuck, like St. Thomas, or St. Paul. As for your last post, about Christianity having been weakened -- what religion is not diffused by the encounter with human society, and tamed to affirm that society's values? Just because it ain't pure don't mean it ain't good. | ||
| John Smith |
What does it matter whether the resurrection happened or not? The gospels still have some good stories in them regardless. | ||
| Richard Adler |
I've always thought a belief in the physicality of the Resurrection relied on a literal virgin birth in affirming the uniqueness of Jesus the Christ - perhaps part of the Aristotelian/Greek logic used by the early church in trying to explain and assess the unexplainable. A fundamentalist would certainly argue that to render any part of the Gospel story as not literally true destroys the integrity and entire fabric of the story. If the miracle and virgin birth stories are not taken as literally true, why then isn't the Resurrection and Incarnation given similar regard with the same logic applied? I guess I'm happy to be a Christian by description rather than by word, as you've put it John. It is in 'spirit' I worship the Christ and through the Gospels have revealed to me a truth by which to live. My motivation therefore can never be found in a proof, cognizant of an external event or sign but a direction illuminated from awareness within. The spirit held within early Gnosticism perhaps shows how a revealed knowledge of God is redemptive in the spiritual element of man. A growth in this spirit will in time radiate a very real and personal presence of God whom I call Christ. Regardless of our beliefs, our sensitivities should always extend to others in their faith and not let our assertions cause them to stumble but grow. I believe a significant strength rests within the realm of Christianity and its often-distorted message is far from tame as it reaches out to embrace every particle and molecule of life. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Richard, I suspect that except for my non-rational insistence on the two miracles, we are pretty much in agreement. By the same token, though, you insist on no miracles. Perhaps the basis of your insistence is a non-rational belief in scientific rationalism? (I'm a scientific rationalist myself, but I admit that scientific rationalism has limits.) I like the Incarnation and Resurrection (this is for you, too, John Smith) because of the emotional meaning they have for me, which I have tried to explain elsewhere on this site. I also like them because they are indigestible lumps that confound analysis except on their own terms. They take Christianity from being a philosophical system or a style of being religious into a full-fledged religion in and of itself. They give Christianity that "in spite of" quality. Or, if I may steal biblical language, they are the salt that gives Christianity its savor. You know, it's a great story. God shows up, and people kill him because they don't like/believe his theology. Then he comes back from being dead to show them up, and treats them to eternal life. Which gets back to Richard's point about the difference in belief and faith, and that we shouldn't get too attached to our beliefs. | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
Musician Mitch McVicker has something very interesting to say about theology in an interview at http://christianmusic.about.com/library/weekly/aa110101a.htm?PM=n30111501f . See the last paragraph in particular. | ||
| Richard Adler |
Mitch Mcvicker expresses something very close to what I'm feeling - Thanks Richard. As for miracles - I think our very existence is miraculous. So on the contrary, rather than their being no miracles, the creative process of life is extraordinary and in terms of the universe is in itself a 'miracle'. I believe we too often regard the common place as mundane - the odds for us to even arrive, let alone survive seem so infinitesimally small. I think we both believe in miracles John - you have two and I've lost count. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Richard Adler, I agree that existence itself is a miracle! So did Einstein. But if you have lost count of miracles, what's the problem with one or two more? | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Richard Gay, Fantastic McVickers interview you linked there! I have maintained for some time that theology is talking about God, which is a poor substitute for prayer, which is talking to God, which is a poor substitute for meditation, which is listening for God. Let us all admit that true religious experience goes beyond theology. But when one comes back from the religious experience, what one makes of it is theological, as is the question which is the theme of this thread. | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
Nice distinctions, John, about the meta- v. the real. Sometimes I think theology is just a system of beliefs that you construct when your faith stops living, growing and being real. | ||
| Richard Adler |
John, Perhaps putting it a little more simply,it is not essential in my faith that I focus on the occurrence of events 2,000 years ago. The opinion,belief or theology I might hold about those reported events are not of my ultimate concern. I know there are many whose faith rests in a literal belief in many, if not all of the recorded events - I do not wish to take this away from them and I gather, neither do you. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Richard Gay, I think theology is what we do because we can't stop thinking. Our faith can be growing and real. But whenever we stop to think about it, we compulsively theologize. In and of itself, theology is neither good nor bad, its just what we do. Richard Adler, As a matter of intellectualism or rationality, I wouldn't be concerned, either. But I feel called to my concern. And we each answer our callings one way or another. | ||
| Richard Adler |
On your last posting, John, I can wholeheartedly concur - our 'spirits' do not differ. My hope is one day there is a church big enough in its accommodation of our differing beliefs and that, in our laughter, we might actually see each other. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Well, this Virtual Church is big enough. Recall that we have atheist members, for example. I wish I could remember who gave the following answer to those who disagreed strongly with him on matters of religion: "I'm a little busy to deal with that right now. We can talk about it in Heaven. See ya there." Nevertheless, I am curious to understand the viewpoint of one who has lost count of the miracles he believes in, but does not believe in the 2 miracles of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Not that I seek to convince you of them, but to understand what seems to be so scandalous about them. Or is scandalous the right word? | ||
| Richard Adler |
Thanks for your creative insight in creating such a Church with its forum, John. Maybe as our words float around in cyberspace they'll flow into areas where they'll broaden the not so virtual Church and create a bigger heaven on earth. I guess I don't believe in the 2 miracles as mentioned in the same sense as you do but nevertheless do have a belief in them. There's nothing within the scriptures I find as scandalous only some of the ways in which people seek to interpret and apply them. | ||
| Fiona Elliott-McCrea |
Can anybody prove that it didn't happen? No. Not anymore than they can prove that it did. It's an irrevalant question.. Or is it? | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
God can. But why should He? He wants us to BELIEVE it happened. Just like it pleases me, when my own children put their trust in my instruction, and out of love for me, obey my direction (which is there for their benefit), even though it may not make sense to them at the time. And after trusting Him, He'll prove it to you, that He's good, and full of love. But I don't claim to understand WHY He is that way. To be perfectly honest, after knowing Him, I don't really care to understand WHY, because even if my head-knowledge of God increased to that extreme level, it still wouldn't satisfy me like His simple presence does. Sorry to answer the question with such an experiential description, but He has risen, and because He has, the whole thing becomes very much rooted in personal relationship and personal experience. I don't believe that He communicates to me like He communicates to you- that would be too limiting for Him. I think He loves each of us, and relates to each of us, right where we are, on our level. | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 34 Registered: 5-2005 |
1. Paul does not say HE personally knew 500 people who had seen Jesus after the resurrection. Paul's statement is nothing more than a common self-serving mechanism for boosting credibility, and and the same type of statement is used today by every politician alive (and most of the televangelists as well). 2. I would also think that Christianity being made the state religion of the Roman Empire guaranteed its survival over all. 3. All the "post-resurrection passages" in the four Gospels have the distinct appearance of being "add-ons" - - and certainly there is reason to believe the story of the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb is a later addition to the text as well. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm http://www.middleeastfacts.com/jews4judaism/resurrection.php http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_dpratt3.htm Unfortunately in the final analysis, those who simply "want to believe in the resurrection," will believe there was a resurrection, no matter what evidence indicates otherwise, and this "false belief" will just not go away. The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 35 Registered: 5-2005 |
Kevin, J. Futterman, and all.... Just ran across this site, and began following some of the links off the site. I don't know if their research is good/bad/indifferent, but they have some doggone interesting stuff here! You might want to spend a few days going through their links....there's a LOT of material. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper  Username: adminPost Number: 441 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, 1. Paul, in his letter, implies that the recipient(s) know the 500 or so witnesses to the Resurrection. 2. Christianity was persecuted by the Roman Empire until Constantine I's Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. Your contention that Rome supported Christianity omits nearly 200 years of official persecution, which was at times quite severe (under Nero, for example). 3. "All the post-Resurrection passages..." The scholarly consensus is that the original ending of Mark is lost to us. But that consensus does not agree with you regarding the other three Gospels. Your website sources are hardly dispassionate. They are all trying to "prove" their agenda that either Jesus never existed or that the Resurrection never happened. This puts them in exactly the same position as the Church whose faith they criticize. They are just trying to convince themselves of what they already believe. Considering the history of the Early Church, from the Crucifixion to the Edict of Milan, it is a miracle that the Church survived. Perhaps the main event that got the Church growing was the mission of Paul to the Gentiles - a mission undertaken by one whose agenda (until his conversion) was to destroy the Church. The simplest explanation of the Church's miraculous survival and growth is that the Resurrection actually happened in some form that was unquestionably real to those who witnessed it. Any other explanation is more complicated. And now a word of warning: There is a nice little book called Why God Won't Go Away about the neurological/biological basis of religious experience. We seem to be made or evolved (the majority of us, anyway) to need God, or some transcendent value or cause greater than ourselves. And while it is true that when Temporal and Spiritual Power were combined, terrible things were done, that combination has been broken up in Western Culture, to the betterment of both civil and religious life. But, so far, whatever has stepped in to fill the void left when faith in God has receded or been banished has been monstrous - e.g. National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 11 Registered: 5-2005 |
I tried making a point about mother of god Mary but no one picked up on it.. In my opinion: the way Jesus was portrayed in the bible as someone offering equal opportunity to all. He treated women with outmost respect, a good indicator of that was,visiting prostitutes. After his resurrection Mary was not mentioned, why? Didn’t any of the disciples learn anything from Jesus on how to treat woman, especially mother of God. Wouldn’t they at least have visited her now and then, to make sure she was OK? Or maybe not, maybe there was anything to visit, maybe this is just another indicator that Jesus never was. | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 36 Registered: 5-2005 |
Not exhaustive, but the Catholics have a little on this: (Mary)http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/mary/mothertext.html There seems to be amazingly little known regarding Mary after the "resurrection." The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 37 Registered: 5-2005 |
J. Futterman: Yes, there does appear to be a "need" for a higher power hardwired into our brains. But is this a "moral/ethical" higher power, or a "religious" higher power? Survival of the church AFTER Christianity was made the state religion was guaranteed. BEFORE it was made a state religion, there are given a number of reasons for its survival (aside from the resurrection, assuming the resurrection happened). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 445 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, Morality/Ethics without a higher power is philosophy, not religion. See the new thread on religion being hardwired into the human brain. As to the survival of the Church, the PBS link has some interesting stuff, but I liked Wayne Meeks' statement. There is no getting around the teaching of the Church from its origin that Jesus arose from death, and that this was a major part of Christianity's appeal. Because in earthly (and in particular in Roman) terms, Jesus was a nobody. This was a "democratization" of Resurrection, a promising of Resurrection to everybody, not just to god, demigods, and heroes. BTW, you are an ex-Christian posting on a Christian website. Seeker (seekeraftertruth), what are you seeking here? All, I plan to peel off the last few posts into a new thread on Mary. But if Mary disappears from the post-Resurrection narratives, Joseph disappears much earlier. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 219 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, One should be carefull not term all movements from within Christianity as anti-rational or simply pro-supernatural. There is a distinction between a tightly structured traditional Christianity and Liberal Christianity. For instance, Paul Tillich's radical departure from traditional Christian theology is his view of Christ and his view of a non-literal and non-physical ressurection - Christ is not God in the traditional sense, but reveals the essence inherent in all existence, including mine and your own. Traditional Christians define Liberal Christianity as "A movement that seeks to retain religious and spiritual values of Christianity while discounting the infallible authority of the Bible. Its origins are in the German Enlightenment, notably in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the religious views of Friedrich Schleiermacher. Liberals reject the stated authorship and historical accuracy of many books of the Bible. They are skeptical concerning many or all of the biblical miracles, preferring naturalistic explanations or viewing miracle accounts as legend or myth. They often deny or reinterpret in mythical terms such doctrines of orthodox Christianity as the virgin birth, atoning death, and even the resurrection of Jesus. Liberalism has been most influential in mainline Protestant denominations and is rejected in Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity." -Watchman Fellowship's 2001 Index of Cults and Religions. Pope Benedict declared at a pre-conclave Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, “We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires” – this is a conservative Catholic jibe at modern heterodoxy, perhaps seeking the return to an orthodoxy and authority of their own making. | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 13 Registered: 5-2005 |
Scooper you say: But if Mary disappears from the post-Resurrection narratives, Joseph disappears much earlier. ***I don’t think that Josef was relevant to biblical history since he did not father Jesus but on the other hand Mary is. I’m not saying that Josef didn’t play his part, all I’m saying is God chose Mary and she should have been rewarded by recognition for more than just gods incubator |
