Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,829 Year: 4,086/9,624 Month: 957/974 Week: 284/286 Day: 5/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 60 of 384 (430751)
10-27-2007 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
10-27-2007 12:34 AM


Ringo writes:
What does the resurrection have to do with His message of love?
From your perspective it there is no connection. From my perception it is an example of self-sacrificing love.
Ringo writes:
What scientific or historical evidence applies to the resurrection of Jesus?
As has been pointed out we are going off topic somewhat so I'll be brief. Jesus was one of many who claimed to be the Messiah, (anointed one) during that period. In the majority of cases the would be messiahs were put to death bringing their movement to an abrupt end. Subsequent to their deaths they were just viewed as failed messiahs.
When Jesus was put to death his followers assumed that He was another failed messiah and so they went back to their fishing and other occupations. Only one of them, (John) even showed up for the crucifixion. However, after the crucifixion this very suddenly all changed. Now his followers were prepared to commit their lives to continuing the movement, even to imprisonment and death. Something had to have happened and the most sensible conclusion to come to in my view is that they were relating their actual experience of the resurrected Jesus.
Paul is another interesting character. Here was a Pharisee with power, influence, prestige, financial security etc who gives it all up to spread Christianity to the Gentiles no less. Not a great career move. I can't see him doing this on a whim.
Here is a list of known messianic wannabes of that period. There is only one we still hear about today.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
17. Lukuas (115 CE)
18. Simon ben Kosiba (132-135)
19. Moses of Crete (448)

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 12:34 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 12:30 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 61 of 384 (430752)
10-27-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by anglagard
10-27-2007 3:05 AM


anglagard writes:
Oops, King was Civil Rights, Mandela was anti-apartheid. Except for a handful of Arab nations, slavery has been illegal for quite some time. I believe the last 'major' nation (at the time) to officially outlaw slavery was Brazil in 1888.
I hadn't meant that to imply that King or Mandela were involved in the abolition of slavery. My point was that Christians were heavily involved in the abolition of slavery and that King and Mandela as Christians had also led civil rights movements.
anglagard writes:
This line of inquiry is however going far afield of my original intent in this thread, which is to discuss why every word in Genesis must be accepted literally and without thought, examination, or the exercise of critical thinking as being from the direct dictation of God while other books, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus, or even the entire content of the NT can be ignored however the supposed adherent chooses.
Sorry. It is largely my fault it got off topic.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2007 3:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 65 of 384 (430801)
10-27-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
10-27-2007 12:30 PM


Ringo writes:
I'm glad you're so well-appraised about my perspective. But, yet again, you haven't answered the question. Of course His death (and more importantly, His life) can be seen as and example of self-sacrificing love. I'm asking about the resurrection.
Because we don't have a deistic God that created us just to leave us on our own. It is evidence of a God that cared enough and loved enough to continue to interact with the creatures he created in his image.
Ringo writes:
What is it that makes the resurrection a deal-breaker for you? Why is it that the Genesis account can be taken as metaphor/fiction/typo and the resurrection accounts can not?
Without the resurrection I'd be left with Judaism or Theism. Without the resurrection Jesus would be just another failed messiah.
Obviously there was no one around at the time of creation. There were eye witness accounts of the resurrection.
Ringo writes:
If a large event (creation) can be fictionalized, why not a small one (resurrection)?
Is a metaphor or allegory fiction? I don't see the creation story as having been fictionalized.
Most people are not going to devote their lives for something they don't believe in. I don't see that there can be much doubt that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected. Certainly you can argue that they were mistaken but there were still many eye-witnesses to the event that could have discredited their testimony if it was false.
I wonder why I have a feeling that you aren't going to agree with all this.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 4:55 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 67 of 384 (430810)
10-27-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
10-27-2007 4:55 PM


Ringo writes:
Again, Jesus' life (and death) are "evidence of a God that cared enough and loved enough to continue to interact with the creatures he created in his image". I don't see that resurrection has anything to do with it.
The biblical story begins with creation and ends with new creation. New creation being the new heaven and the new earth combining in a re-created existance. Christ returned to establish the roots of new creation as a part of God's plan for His creation. It is what you might call a necessary part of a long range plan.
I realize that if one believes in nothing but our physical universe then all that is nonsense, but just the same we don't seem to have a problem in believing that dark matter exists.
Ringo writes:
What's the problem with that, though? The topic isn't about why you prefer Christianity to Judaism or some other brand of theism. It's about why you pick and choose certain parts of the Bible as being "fundamental", while other parts are not.
Without the resurrection Christianity is nothing but a set of moral values. It ceases to be a faith. It ceases to be Christianity.
Ringo writes:
Nor can there be much doubt that Frodo believed the ring was magic. The question is: Why do you have to buy into the magic ring to get anything out of the story?
First off, I buy into the story because I believe it is true. I agree however, that loving your neighbour is still a good plan regardless of the resurrection.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 4:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 7:28 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 69 of 384 (430817)
10-27-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
10-27-2007 7:28 PM


Ringo writes:
The question still remains: Why does removing the resurrection make it cease to be Christianity but removing the literal six-day creation doesn't?
Whether creation happened in six days or in 14 billion years it still happened. If there is no resurrection Jesus is just another would be messiah and all of his followers would just have gone back to thier knitting or fishing.
Here is a paper that, if you are prepared to take the time, you might find interesting. It is by the current Anglican Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright.
The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 7:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 74 of 384 (430851)
10-27-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
10-27-2007 7:54 PM


Re: Biblical fundamentalism?
Buzsaw writes:
The Bible doesn't support it's own basic fundamentals?
I see your point, but fundamentalism is a very nebulous term and I think that most here would see it as the part of Christianity that insists on a literal reading of all scripture.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2007 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 80 of 384 (436803)
11-27-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by doctrbill
11-26-2007 6:15 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
doctrbill writes:
The old man is gone now, but not before he saw me become an atheist Sunday School teacher.
This is the thing about fundamentalism. (At least by the definition that most would understand it here.) It isn't mainstream Christianity and never has been.
If one is raised in a fundamentalist environment, and then decides to look more deeply into it, they are likely to discard all Christianity because they can no longer accept what I believe to be a distortion of it.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 11-26-2007 6:15 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 5:17 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 84 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:56 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 88 of 384 (436882)
11-27-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by doctrbill
11-27-2007 6:56 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
doctrbill writes:
If one doesn't know the basics (the fundamentals) then how does one determine what is genuine and what is distortion? No offense intended but if we are going to accuse the other guy of having it wrong then we should be able to explain to him how he's wrong. (whether he accepts it or not is another matter)
It isn't always just a matter of how well you know your Bible. For example how do you explain to someone that the Genesis story is allegorical. How do you explain to someone that the people who destroyed Jericho and its inhabitants did so because either they needed to justify it, or they heard God wrong. I've tried telling people to read that in the light of the teachings of Jesus and explained how Jesus viewed conflict with the Romans but that thought is just rejected because it isn't consistent with a literal reading of the text.
If one insists that the Bible is to be taken absolutely literally then there is no way to explain it to them in any other way.
Incidentally I didn't accuse anyone of being wrong, I just said that it is my opinion that they are. (Splitting hairs maybe but it does give a different tone to the discussion.)

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:56 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by doctrbill, posted 11-28-2007 8:37 AM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024