Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 280 (574393)
08-15-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theodoric
08-15-2010 3:58 PM


Re: So no evidence for your assertion?
LOL
Okay. Call BS.
It was an opinion.
If you disagree then fine.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 08-15-2010 3:58 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 08-16-2010 10:32 AM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 280 (574399)
08-15-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 12:29 PM


Bikerman writes:
Surely you are joking? So, this chap who was dead has now been spotted alive, and you don't think that would interest anyone? It would be banner-headline news in EVERY contemporary writer's account of the times. It would be plastered all over Senica, Philos et al. It would be the most significant event ever.
Here's a surprise. I don't see it that way. Jesus was a subversive in every way. The Jews at the time were looking for a messiah to lead them militarily against the Romans or those like the Herodians made out very well by cozying up to them.
There would be a risk attached to be seen to be supporting this new movement, and besides there was no appetite for a god that supported the idea of loving your enemy.
As for the Romans they would be unlikely to write about it as in the first place they probably wouldn't believe it and secondly the followers of Jesus were preaching a message that Jesus is king and Caesar isn't. That was not a message that would endear them to the powerful people that they had to answer to.
One other minor thought is that most of the writing from that era was lost anyway. We don't actually know what might have been written. We know about what we have.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:29 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 08-15-2010 5:34 PM GDR has replied
 Message 50 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 6:50 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 280 (574400)
08-15-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 12:38 PM


Bikerman writes:
I wondered if you would raise this. OK now, doesn't the letter have a pleading quality? Notice also the choice of words 'if it is preached that....'. What Paul is saying is 'look, you HAVE to believe in the resurrection, otherwise it all falls apart'. BUT he offers nothing to help. He might have said 'Look, I have just talked to James and he witnessed the resurrection', or he might have offered any number of witness testimonies as evidence. What does he actually do? He says please, just accept it, otherwise....
I think this actually is evidence against, rather than evidence for...
This is a letter to believers. The point would already have been made. I don't see it as pleading. What he is saying is that this is absolutely central to what it that the church is founded on. He then goes on, (after my previous quote), in much detail about resurrection and what it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:38 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 49 of 280 (574402)
08-15-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
08-15-2010 5:17 PM


As for the Romans they would be unlikely to write about it as in the first place they probably wouldn't believe it and secondly the followers of Jesus were preaching a message that Jesus is king and Caesar isn't. That was not a message that would endear them to the powerful people that they had to answer to.
Which would be more likely that they would print about an event they would think was pure junk.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 5:17 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 6:56 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 50 of 280 (574415)
08-15-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
08-15-2010 5:17 PM


quote:
Here's a surprise. I don't see it that way. Jesus was a subversive in every way. The Jews at the time were looking for a messiah to lead them militarily against the Romans or those like the Herodians made out very well by cozying up to them.
There would be a risk attached to be seen to be supporting this new movement, and besides there was no appetite for a god that supported the idea of loving your enemy.
That is just a red-herring.
Citizen 1: Have you heard - that guy they crucified a few days ago has been seen wandering around.
Citizen 2: geronwithya...are you serious?
Citizen 1: Yerrs, the neighbour Alfie saw 'im clear as day
Citizen 2: ee wait 'till I tell the missus
Citizen 3: ....... and so on.
It would spread like wildfire.
quote:
As for the Romans they would be unlikely to write about it as in the first place they probably wouldn't believe it and secondly the followers of Jesus were preaching a message that Jesus is king and Caesar isn't. That was not a message that would endear them to the powerful people that they had to answer to.
LOL...that is just daft - even using your own terms of reference.
The first thing they would do would be to check it out. If there is a zombie walking around they would want to know about it. The Jews were in day to day control anyway - the romans were little more than a token presence under Herod.
The typical Roman centurian was like the typical squaddie - their feelings are not generally hurt by someone having a pop at the monarch or emperor. We know from the writings of the time that criticising the emperor was common. Besides Tiberius Caeser had withdrawn to Capri at this time (assuming >26CE) and rumour was rife about him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 5:17 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 51 of 280 (574416)
08-15-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by bluescat48
08-15-2010 5:34 PM


bluescat48 writes:
Which would be more likely that they would print about an event they would think was pure junk.
I think that either suggestion I made would be sufficient reason for them not to write about it. There would be no upside for them. As I said, unless they had seen the resurrected Jesus themselves they probably wouldn't believe it and besides they didn't believe in the Jewish God anyway. As for the god that Jesus represented why would they worship Him. Jesus presented a God who preached love and forgiveness as opposed to what they were looking for which was power and wealth. In their mind the Caesar's would be a much better alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 08-15-2010 5:34 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:06 PM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 52 of 280 (574418)
08-15-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by GDR
08-15-2010 6:56 PM


This is just wrong on every level.
Have you ever read Seneca? Philo? Philo describes Judaism in fantastic detail. He specialised in writing about their beliefs and history. If he had even got a sniff of this he would have splashed it all over his journals - this is his specialist area. It was Philo who, as an ambassador, reported to the emperor about Jewish happenings, complaints, events, beliefs etc. The notion that he would have been either disinterested or scared is baloney.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 6:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 10:04 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 08-16-2010 10:21 AM Bikerman has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 53 of 280 (574439)
08-15-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 7:06 PM


Bikerman writes:
It was Philo who, as an ambassador, reported to the emperor about Jewish happenings, complaints, events, beliefs etc. The notion that he would have been either disinterested or scared is baloney.
I won't try and be something I'm not. I haven't read Philo so I had to do some research. Rather than just use wiki which isn't always reliable I found this PBS piece on him. Frankly from reading this it would seem that from the perspective of Philo he had much bigger fish to fry. This doesn't seem to agree with your take on him. He went to the Romans to persuade them to quit persecuting the Jews. He was an ambassador chosen by Alexandrian Jews and lived in Alexandria and not in Jerusalem.
quote:
A Jewish leader and scholar, Philo (circa 20 BC — 40 AD) risked his life to plead for greater tolerance for Jews in the Roman Empire.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish leader, philosopher and scholar in the first century. Born in 30 BC to a wealthy Jewish family in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, he was an important spokesman for Jews throughout the Roman Empire.
Religious tolerance
Under the Emperor Augustus, Jews in Rome were allowed to live together and were treated fairly. Philo wrote that they could practice their religion and received the same help as any other Roman.
But Augustus died, and within decades the situation was very different. In 39 AD, when Caligula was emperor, religious intolerance erupted in Alexandria. Non-Jews had placed statues of human gods in the city’s synagogues.
Religious riots
Furious at this desecration, the Jews tore them out and violence erupted. Philo writes of how mobs of men killed Jews and set fire to Jewish properties.
Only emperors could resolve situations this big and, unfortunately, Caligula didn’t care. A group of Jewish leaders, including Philo, left Alexandria for Rome to see the emperor and make their case. However, Philo wrote that he knew the trip was pointless as soon as they entered Caligula’s presence.
A new god?
Caligula did not give them a warm welcome. He mocked the Jews and their beliefs to the point where the Jewish leaders thought they would be executed. In fact, they escaped, only to find out that Caligula had ordered a statue that portrayed himself as a god. He planned to put it up in the temple at Jerusalem.
The temple was the most sacred place for Jews: a statue of Caligula placed there was a sin against the Jewish faith and was bound to cause more riots. Philo wrote that the Jewish elders swore to die on the spot rather than see their temple defiled.
A lucky escape
Luckily, this sacrifice was not needed. Before the statue was even built, Caligula had been murdered and a new emperor — Claudius — was in power.
Philo continued to speak for the Jewish people. He told senior Romans of his experiences and published his complaints against the Roman treatment of Jews in Alexandria. Later in life, his work combining Greek and Jewish philosophy would prove a major influence on Jewish and Christian religious studies.
  —PBS
I can see where he would be disinterested in a break- away group from traditional Jewish belief that was in his lifetime hardly known at that time in Egypt where he lived, and it also sounds like he had every reason to be scared.
Edited by GDR, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:06 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:05 AM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 54 of 280 (574484)
08-16-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by GDR
08-15-2010 10:04 PM


I suggest you need to do some more reading. A few things missing from your article (and one thing included that you glossed overr).
a) The time we are talking about is the reign of Augustus - the one sympathetic to Jews - not Caligula - that is later.
b) Philo's brother - Alexander - was one of (if not the) wealthiest men in the region. He had extensive dealings with Herod and paid for the doors of the Temple in Jerusalem to be covered in gold and silver. He was intimitely aware of the goings on throughout the region because of his role of Chief Tax official).
c) Although Philo had his home in Alexandria we know he spent some time in Jerusalem and he had intimite contact with the Royal House of Judea.
d) One of his nephews (Marcus) was married to Herod Agrippa's daughter. Another (Julius) was procurator of Judea. Herod Agippa (Herod the Great's grandson) was the REAL King of the Jews in 39CE (ie he was ruler of all Jewish lands except Judea).
Yet there is nothing in his extensive writings about Jewry that mentions Jesus, or in fact ANY of the supposed events in the New Testament. That isn't just strange, it is actually pretty unbelieveable UNLESS Jesus was either a myth or a very small time rebel who was later blown up into the mythical Jesus of the gospels.
The notion that Philo would have ignored this new 'King of the Jews' who makes a triumphant entry into Jerusalem, where the crowds worship him - well, that is not even remotely believable.
What seems to be the case is that the Jesus story grew from almost nothing, cheekily referencing Agrippa, probably to wind-him up because he was universally hated, with the reference to 'King of the Jews', and was then built up over the following decades into the story you read in the gospels. This is entirely consistent with Paul's writings, and with the known inconsistencies in the gospels themselves. It also explains the otherwise inexplicable lack of any mention from Philo.
Edited by Bikerman, : sp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 08-15-2010 10:04 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 08-16-2010 11:14 AM Bikerman has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 280 (574520)
08-16-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 7:06 PM


PBS writes:
Have you ever read Seneca?
That's what I love about this forum. Great place to learn. After reading about Seneca I would see no reason for him to write about Jesus or Christianity. He was a stoic and politician who lived in Rome except for a short stint in Egypt, and a time in exile in Corsica.
PBS writes:
Statue of Seneca
A philosopher, writer, orator and statesman, Seneca (4 BC — 65 AD) was Rome's leading intellectual during the middle of the first century AD. Brought back from exile, he and his friends would virtually rule Rome in the first years of Nero's reign.
The second son of a wealthy family, Seneca was educated in the philosophy of the Sextii. This was heavily influenced by stoicism, whose followers believed that virtue is based on knowledge and that the ups and downs of everyday life should be accepted calmly.
As a young man, Seneca fell very ill and visited Egypt to recover. He returned to Rome in 31 AD and began a career in politics. Seneca soon fell foul of Emperor Caligula, who only let him live because he was told that Seneca's health meant that he would probably die soon anyway.
Banished
When Claudius took the throne, things got even worse. Accused of adultery with the emperor's niece, Julia Livilla, Seneca was banished to Corsica in 41 AD. He was already famous as a writer and thinker. He continued his work in exile, writing philosophy and drama. Taking the classic stoic line, he wrote that "one man's exile was but a drop in the sea of human upheaval".
Claudius stayed in Corsica for eight years until Agrippina, Claudius' third and final wife, arranged his return to Rome to tutor her son, Nero. This raised ethical problems: stoics avoided extravagant living and believed in a brotherhood of man long before Christians preached the same message. Living under absolute rule of an emperor, stoics were forced to walk a fine line between integrity and hypocrisy.
Position of power
Back in Rome, the murder of Claudius propelled Seneca's student, Nero, to the top job. As a key member of his court, Seneca found that he and his friends were, in effect, governing Rome. His job was to help Nero become a reasonable emperor — a difficult job given his young age and his murderous mother.
For a while, Seneca succeeded in controlling Nero's darker side. As an influential courtier, he also introduced important reforms to taxes and the courts. He also promoted a more humane attitude to slaves.
Boundaries becoming blurred
As Nero grew older, however, he proved much harder to control. His cruelty and depravity became more common. For Seneca, the line between integrity and hypocrisy became blurred. As one of Nero's key advisors, Seneca had condoned (or may even have been involved in) the emperor's murder of his own mother.
After repeated requests, Seneca was finally allowed to retire in 62 AD. But it was not to last long. Three years later, he was accused of taking part in a plot to assassinate Nero. Despite thin evidence, an officer was sent to demand his suicide. As a stoic, Seneca met his end calmly.
One of the leading philosophers of ancient Rome, Seneca left behind a large body of essays, letters, tragedies and poems that have preserved his thoughts for almost two thousand years. Although he knew that his actions had not lived up to his ideals, he hoped that history would forgive him.
The following talks about Seneca's writing and is from wiki. His writings were largely his philosophical thoughts and his stoicism.
quote:
Works attributed to Seneca include a dozen philosophical essays, one hundred twenty-four letters dealing with moral issues, nine tragedies, a satire, and a meteorological essay. One of the tragedies attributed to him, Octavia, has been argued as having been written by another. His authorship of another, Hercules on Oeta, has been questioned, though not to the extent of the Octavia.
Seneca generally employed a pointed rhetorical style. His writings contain the traditional themes of Stoic philosophy: the universe is governed for the best by a rational providence; contentedness is achieved by a simple, unperturbed life in accordance with nature and the duty to the state; human suffering should be accepted and has a positive effect on the soul; study and learning is important; et cetera. He emphasized practical steps by which the reader might confront life's problems. In particular, he considered it important to confront the fact of one's own mortality. The discussion of how to approach death dominates many of his letters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:06 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 56 of 280 (574521)
08-16-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
08-15-2010 4:13 PM


Re: So no evidence for your assertion?
It was an opinion.
If you disagree then fine.
But it isn't just an opinion. You did not present it as an opinion. This is not a "just agree to disagree" moment. You made an assertion in a way that you expected it to be taken on just your say so and you have been shown to be wrong.
Your opinion does not change reality. The way to show the reality is different and to change my viewpoint is to provide evidence. If you can not provide evidence then your "opinion" is wrong.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 4:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 08-16-2010 10:44 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 280 (574522)
08-16-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Theodoric
08-16-2010 10:32 AM


Re: So no evidence for your assertion?
But I have no desire to change your viewpoint on that. I really don't even care if you believe or even KNOW that my opinion on that is wrong.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 08-16-2010 10:32 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 58 of 280 (574527)
08-16-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Bikerman
08-16-2010 8:05 AM


Bikerman writes:
Yet there is nothing in his extensive writings about Jewry that mentions Jesus, or in fact ANY of the supposed events in the New Testament. That isn't just strange, it is actually pretty unbelieveable UNLESS Jesus was either a myth or a very small time rebel who was later blown up into the mythical Jesus of the gospels.
The notion that Philo would have ignored this new 'King of the Jews' who makes a triumphant entry into Jerusalem, where the crowds worship him - well, that is not even remotely believable.
Philo wrote about Jews. The original Christians were Jews and essentially still held to Jewish scripture. The first Christian writings that have been maintained are by Paul after Philo's death. They were essentially a small Jewish sect along with a number of other Jewish sects. Philo's mission in life was to preserve Jewish interests within the Roman empire. I just can't see any good reason for him to write about the early Christians.
Frankly, I can see no reasonable explanation for the Christian church to grow out of that era if Jesus wasn't resurrected. His ministry was a mere 3 years before he was executed by the Romans. He preached an unpopular message and his followers were almost exclusively lower class and illiterate. Yet somehow out of that has come Christianity.
Compare this with the Bar Kokhba revolt years 100 years later. Simon bar Kozeba wasa declared as the messiah and led a revolt against the Romans. They established an independent Israel for a couple of years before being crushed by the Romans. They even minted coins which declaring years 1,2 and 3. After the death Simon bar Kozeba's death there was no thought of his being the messiah or anything else. It just ended.
Jesus was put to death very publically. When all other messianic wannabes were put to death their movement just ended. Why didn't this one? I believe the answer is because Jesus was resurrected, and that this movement was blessed by the one who created life in the first place.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:05 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 1:41 PM GDR has replied
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 10:52 PM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 59 of 280 (574730)
08-17-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by GDR
08-16-2010 11:14 AM


Philo did indeed write about the Jews. A Jew entering Jerusalem who was greeted by massive crowds worshipping him as the son of God is a pretty newsworthy event. Did Philo even mention it? Nada...not a single word. Conclusion - didn't happen.
The rest - 'i can see no reason..;..' is simply an appeal to ignorance. Why did the Christians succeed where other similar cults failed? It just did. The reasons are numerous and complex. Probably the most important would be the Christian dogma asserting that anyone, including Gentiles, could be saved. That created a much larger target for the cult and allowed it to grow more rapidly than the more traditionally based cults which insisted that gentiles were 'not allowed'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 08-16-2010 11:14 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 08-17-2010 4:21 PM Bikerman has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 60 of 280 (574752)
08-17-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Bikerman
08-17-2010 1:41 PM


Bikerman writes:
Philo did indeed write about the Jews. A Jew entering Jerusalem who was greeted by massive crowds worshipping him as the son of God is a pretty newsworthy event. Did Philo even mention it? Nada...not a single word. Conclusion - didn't happen.
He didn't write about newsworthy events according to what I read. He wrote about the Jews to the Romans in a way that was intended primarily to keep the Alexandrian Jews safe from persecution. He only visited Jerusalem once in his life, and that would have been at least a decade after the crucifixion. In his life time the early Christians were only a small part of the Jewish community, representing Yahweh in a way that the majority of Jews didn't want to hear. Philo had no reason to write about the resurrection as in all likelihood he wouldn't have believed it in the first place.
Bikerman writes:
The rest - 'i can see no reason..;..' is simply an appeal to ignorance. Why did the Christians succeed where other similar cults failed? It just did. The reasons are numerous and complex. Probably the most important would be the Christian dogma asserting that anyone, including Gentiles, could be saved. That created a much larger target for the cult and allowed it to grow more rapidly than the more traditionally based cults which insisted that gentiles were 'not allowed'.
But it's all an appeal to ignorance. Neither of us can know conclusively what the truth is.
It's true that the Jews weren't evangelistic with their beliefs except among fellow Jews, but there were the religions of the Greeks and Romans that were, in the sense that they had the support of those in power and were even in a position to impose their religion on others. That's where the power was. Compare that to a small band of working class Jews proposing a God that was telling them to deal with the Romans by loving them and turning the other cheek. It was a traitorous message.
Part of what forms our acceptance or rejection of this is our belief in how we came to exist at all. I can't muster up sufficient faith to accept that we are here because of some huge cosmic good fortune that allowed for anything to exist at all, to have atoms form and then combine to form complex molecules, to have these combine by good fortune into incredibly complex living cells, to have these cells combine into the animal life that we see today, and then to continue to evolve into sentient beings with consciousness.
It seems far more likely to me that there was a pre-existing intelligence behind all of this. With that in mind, it seems far more likely to me that this intelligence would have an on-going interest in how the whole project turned out.
If my view is correct then there had to be at least one miracle that occurred at the time of creation. If one miracle has taken place there is no reason to not believe that there could be more miracles.
If then that is correct, we have to accept it as possible that the story of the resurrection could be true. Now all we can do is look at what we do know and then it is a leap of faith to either accept it as true or to reject it as false. I have come to the conclusion that based on what I know I am prepared to take a leap of faith and say that I am convinced that it is true, partly based on the argument in favour of the truth of Jesus, partly due to experience and partly due to the fact that Christ's message of love, forgiveness, hope, justice etc. makes so much sense of my life and the world.
By the way, thanks again for getting me digging into this stuff.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 1:41 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 5:15 PM GDR has replied
 Message 62 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 6:57 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024