My Beliefs- GDR

The human body. All of the objective evidence is that resurrection of a human body is impossible. That doesn't prove the negative but it outweighs a handful of second-hand "eyewitness" reports. You're throwing objectivity right out the window. You're claiming that a Hindu, for example, who witnessed the same events could not possibly interpret them the same way. So tell us what that reasoning is. Why God? Why not the Tooth Fairy?

The phrase "contrary to natural law" in itself throws the possibility of objectivity out the window. Do you really have enough other examples of 1st-century Jewish writings to know what to expect? Would they have had a clear idea of how to propagate something like a messianic myth? I have no problem with you holding that belief. What I object to is your claim that other historical events such as the Battle of Hastings are a matter of faith and belief to the same exrent. Why not? It isn't observing the same events that causes biased conclusions; it's interpreting those events according to preconceived notions. If I saw what others called a "resurrection" I wouldn't automatically interpret it as a resurrection, an event that was "contrary to natural law". I'd look for an explanation within natural law. On the contrary, I "follow Jesus" to a certain extent and I don't even believe he existed, much less rose from the dead. To follow somebody is to go in the direction they are going, even if the accounts of their going are fiction. There are plenty of them in children's books. You're not really in a position to decide that the authors of those books are less serious than the authors of the gospels. There are plenty of accounts of adults being converted to equally outlandish beliefs such as Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnessism. There's no real difference between any of them and your beliefs. There are plenty of things that your beliefs don't explain. You use "unexplainable" as an excuse all the time. You've had life experiences that "cause" you to believe in the religion that just by sheer coincidence happens to be ubiquitously dominant in your society. If you had grown up in Utah, you'd probably be an equally-convinced Mormon.If Tooth Fairyism was the dominant religion in your society, you'd be a Tooth Fairyist for the same "reasons" that you're a Christian. I don't call that a distinction.

Have you seen (or read) The Last Temptation of Christ? Jesus comes down from the cross and lives a long life, married with children. At one point he meets Paul and is outraged that Paul is preaching his death and resurrection. Paul laughs and says that it doesn't matter a bit whether Jesus rose from the dead. What matters is that the people believe he did.As for the hardships he suffered, Paul wouldn't be the last televangelist to miscalculate the outcome of his ambition. And if you interpret them honestly, the most likely interpretation would be that he was never really dead. (Jesus "died" suspiciously quickly for a crucifixion.) You yourself would come to that conclusion if you witnessed a purported resurrection. But they didn't, really, did they? Many professing Christians "follow" him less than I do. Their belief has no real significance.People will do all sorts of things, good and bad, in the name of belief but their behaviour has no bearing on the legitimacy of their beliefs. That's my point. You've arbitrarily chosen one flavour over another. There is no inherent difference between the flavours.

Who said anything about evidence? It's a response to your claim that Paul "would have" done this or that. It's an alternate scenario of what he "would have" done. Most televangelists are "obviously" humble - but they're pretty good actors too. You really should stop pretending to know what Paul "would have" done. Crucifixion was a deliberately slow form of execution. If Jesus died that quickly, the Romans failed in their purpose. Well, woo... woo.As I said, if you witnessed those events, you wouldn't honestly say that it was a "different kind of physicality". You'd say it was a scam.(By the way, a "different kind of physicality" doesn't count as a resurrection, as far as I'm concerned.) Thanks. I will - at least until somebody is able to show a distinction.

Well, the Jews had a "hot date" with the Sabbath that night. They were the ones who wanted to hurry it up. And the Romans didn't do anything to hurry it up. They were prepared to break Jesus' legs at the Jews' request but they didn't need to; he was already dead.It's a bit of an anti-climax, like a guy dying of natural causes on death row.

When choosing between Paul's fictional account and Kazantzakis' fictional account, I go with the fact that Kazantzakis had a lot more historical information available to him. Whether he used it or not I don't know but yes, he did have the potential for a more authentic fictional account. You're embellishing.

1. There were no experts. He was "dead" enough to bury - i.e. the fun had gone out of the crucifixion - and that was all they cared about.
2. He was scourged and hit with a stick. I know that Christians like to emphasize his suffering but there's nothing in the gospel accounts to suggest that he was near death.
3. Since Jesus had help to get into the tomb, he could also have had help to get out.
4. The guards seem to have disappeared as well as Jesus' body.
5. As I have said, I do give the Tooth Fairy as much credence as the resurrection.

I have had experiences to which my reaction was, "That couldn't have happened - but it did." In those circumstances, I don't jump to the conclusion that the laws of nature have somehow been suspended before my very eyes. I conclude that I didn't really see what I thought I saw. I look at it the same way.

Fiction isn't "lying" nor is it "wrong". If you and the young-earth creationists had more respect for fiction, you'd have a better understanding of the Bible.There has always been a fine line between fiction and non-fiction. Fiction is often presented as an eyewitness account. There is no particular reason to think that the New Testament was "intended" as something significantly different from Robinson Crusoe or Kidnapped. (If anything, the New Testament is more like propaganda, which is closer to intentional deception than fiction is.) The premise doesn't just come out of thin air. Like all good assumptions, it's the conclusion of previous investigation and reasoning. Unless we know that a resurrection is possible, it is improper to use resurrection as a premise. The same argument would apply to a young earth, the Flood, etc. Why are the accounts in the Old Testament less reliable than the accounts in the New Testament?

Why does their belief have to be literally true? And why isn't it clear that the Old Testament writers believed what they wrote? It also depends on what "essence" means. The essence of Robinson Crusoe isn't that the character Robinson Crusoe actually existed. Why does the essence of the gospel have to be that Jesus existed? Why can't the essence of Genesis be that the world is 6000 years old? I do accept the possibility of theistic beliefs. I also accept the possibility of nuclear fusion as an economical energy supply. I also accept the possibility of Bigfoot. What I don't accept is the reality of any of those things - beause there is no evidence at this time that any of those things exist. If evidence for any of them is discovered, I'll be glad to accept them.The problem is that theistic believers tend to define any possible evidence out of existence: "God can not be detected by material means." You're condemning your belief to perpetually be a belief that can never become a fact. Resurrection is also verifiable. If it can ignore the laws of nature, so can the flood. The flood account had to originate from eyewitness accounts too (unless it was inspired by God directly into Moses' brain). And eyewitness accounts are known to be the least reliable form of evidence.

It seems that I'm more of a believer than you are, then. I certainly don't need the resurrection to find value in the New Testament. Once again, there is a vast difference between a historical event such as the Battle of Hastings, with multiple lines of evidence, including physical evidence, and the hearsay stories in the Bible which rest on nothing but belief. If something cannot be confirmed, tested, etc. it isn't "factually correct". It may happen to coincide with the facts; it may eventually be confirmed to be a fact but until it is confirmed it isn't really a fact. I have a book that purports to be the real biography of James Bond. There is no indication whatsoever that it's fiction. Is that any reason to believe that James Bond is real? Is there any reason why somebody couldn't base their understanding of life on it? I didn't ask you what you think the essense of Genesis is. This is what I asked you:

quote:

---

The essence of Robinson Crusoe isn't that the character Robinson Crusoe actually existed. Why does the essence of the gospel have to be that Jesus existed? Why can't the essence of Genesis be that the world is 6000 years old?

---

I'm asking why you cherry-pick one fictional acount to believe and reject the others. Easy. Go to a cemetery and wait three days after a funeral. You can verify statistically the worldwide rate of resurrection the same way you can verify the worldwide population of fairies. So you have eyewitnesses in the New Testament who agree that they thought Jesus was dead and then they thought they saw him alive. The problem with eyewitnesses is that they tell you what they thought they saw, not what actually happened.

So would I. The message is more important than the messenger. The disciples misunderstood the message because they put too much emphasis on the messenger. If they had internalized the message properly, deserting the messenger would have been irrelevant. You're taking the disciples' desertion as a sign of authenticity when you should be taking it as a sign that the messenger isn't the theme of the story. But knowledge isn't knowledge until we know it. Until we know something is "factually correct", it isn't. It is hypothetical and may be correct or not. That isn't obvious at all. As I already mentioned, with reference to The Last Temptation of Christ, Paul's actions work equally well whether Jesus existed or not. But you don't know their intentions. You asked how resurrection is verifiable and I told you. If you're just going to dismiss verification, you might as well dismiss it for evolution too. They agree that it looked like an accident. The gospel writers agreed that it looked like Jesus was dead and then later it looked like he was alive. Eyewitnesses are unreliable not only because they disagree on details but also because they jump to conclusions. And people living in a similar cultural context are likely to jump to similar conclusions.

But it makes no difference whether the message was the word of God or the word of man. The message is the message. It has the same value regardless of its origin. And putting the messenger before the message is the chief obstacle to implementing the message. So how do you "know" that something is a "fact"? Nobody said they "thought" they were writing fiction. The modern concept of fiction wasn't even defined at the time.They wrote what they wrote for a purpose and it's naive to assume that that purpose was a simple narration of events that they had witnessed. Then the word "verify" is worthless. The Flood could just as well be a one-time miraculous event. Even if we can prove that it never happened, you're just as free to believe that it did.

Because of what He said. If what He said had any value, it doesn't matter who said it. No you don't. If you understand the message, you can see its value. But if you waste your time showering the messenger with praise and gifts, you lose your chance to implement the message: Exactly. We can't "know" it in the same way we actually know things. It isn't a "fact" in the same way that facts are actually facts. It's just a belief in the same way that belief in the Tooth Fairy is a belief. But you don't know what they believed. You only believe they believed what they wrote. The Old Testament authors most likely believed what they wrote about the creation and the flood with equal conviction, yet you can accept them being wrong. Why can't you accept the New Testament authors being wrong? So there really are no differences. Neither story can be proven. Both require a suspension of the laws of nature and a coverup of the contrary evidence. Both boil down to a believe-it-or-not, flip-a-coin choice. Jews believe the flood but not the resurrection. You believe the resurrection but not the flood. Tie game.At least Jewish children and Gentile children are in agreement about the Tooth Fairy.

Again, you're putting the messenger above the message. We don't have to give equal weight to everything he said. We can see what has value and what doesn't.When the messenger brought you instructions to reinforce the right flank, you could see that the right flank was in danger of collapsing. You didn't need details on who else thought it was collapsing. But serving Him "by" serving the community is irrelevant. Serving the community is what counts. If God approves, fine, but it doesn't really matter. His approval is as useless to us as our "service" is to Him. You've already admitted that that isn't true. Many people manage to love their neighbours without believing in your God. If He's empowering them invisibly in the background, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they are empowered, not how they're empowered. Evidence is not subjective. I could accept that the New Testament authors were right and the Old Testament authors were wrong. I don't accept it because there's no real distinction between them. The only way you seem to be able to distinguish them is that the New Testament "rings true". Only if you cherry-pick what the "essential elements" are.The Old Testament writers are also consistent about the Flood. So are the New Testament writers, for that matter. Yet you reject one miracle and accept another. On the contrary, magicians do much more impressive tricks every day and their audiences are consistently mistaken. It's a whole industry. It isn't about being Jewish.Allow me to rephrase:

quote:

---

So there really are no differences. Neither story can be proven. Both require a suspension of the laws of nature and a coverup of the contrary evidence. Both boil down to a believe-it-or-not, flip-a-coin choice. Some people believe the flood but not the resurrection. Some people believe the resurrection but not the flood. Tie game.

---

Notice that I said "you" have eyewitnesses, not "we" have eyewitnesses. I was addressing GDR's claim, taking it as a given if you like. The key in the sentence you quoted is that even if the eyewitnesses did exist, they only reported what they thought they saw. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence that anybody actually did see anything.

That's it exactly. We have to decide the value of the message. If the messenger appears to be crazy, we might be inclined to discount the message - but if it's a matter of life and death we still have to consider that possibility that a crazy messenger might have an important message. Or, a messenger who appears to be sane might bring a crazy message.The message is all-important. It effects what we do. The messenger is only one possible indicator of the value of the message. The ultimate act of selflessness would be giving up your seat in heaven for, say, Martin Bormann. That's what Jesus wants. So you're saying that Christianity is a kind of special-ed program for the sellessness-challenged. And the intangibles are not evidence. The charlatans don't. As I've already said, maybe there was no body. The lack of a body is an indication that the death didn't happen. Covering up a faked death is certainly more plausible than an alien abduction.