Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 391 of 1324 (701433)
06-18-2013 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Theodoric
06-18-2013 7:35 PM


Re: Eyewitnesses to Jesus
We have no historical record of Jesus or his parents.
We certainly do, we have the gospels of Matthew and Luke and yes those ARE historical records whether you like it or not.
All of these people and Alexander have a historical record and left a verifiable legacy behind. We have none of that for Jesus. Just a bunch of stories that have questionable and tainted provenance
Sorry, what we have is HISTORY, in the gospel accounts. They are "questionable" only to those with an aggressive need to question them and "tainted" by the same. But in reality they are straightforward historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Theodoric, posted 06-18-2013 7:35 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by ramoss, posted 07-01-2013 10:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 392 of 1324 (701436)
06-19-2013 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Theodoric
06-18-2013 3:24 PM


Re: Eyewitnesses to Jesus
As I said, there are SIX eyewitnesses who wrote part of the New Testament,
Bullshit we have no idea who wrote gospels.
Sure we do, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and there are references to each of them in other parts of the scripture to further identify them as real people.
You show me some historical evidence of who these people were then you may have a point. All we have is christian tradition, no evidence.
No, we have the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, actual witness testimony and history, not just tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Theodoric, posted 06-18-2013 3:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 393 of 1324 (701437)
06-19-2013 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by Theodoric
06-18-2013 11:00 PM


Re: Resurrection
Theodoric writes:
Then admit that there is no historical basis for your belief. It is faith alone.
Nonsense. The Bible are historical accounts whether we know who the authors are or not. We can assess the accounts just as we can any other historical account. These are written somewhat differently as they are accounts that tell of other’s experiences and recollections, which is likely the primary reason that we don’t know the names of those who have put the accounts together. We make a choice as to whether we believe them or not.
Theodoric writes:
Alas there is no evidence for said resurrection is there.
The NT accounts are evidence which as I said we can accept or reject.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Theodoric, posted 06-18-2013 11:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 06-19-2013 1:58 AM GDR has replied
 Message 396 by Theodoric, posted 06-19-2013 10:26 AM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 394 of 1324 (701439)
06-19-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by GDR
06-19-2013 12:48 AM


Re: Resurrection
These are written somewhat differently as they are accounts that tell of other’s experiences and recollections, which is likely the primary reason that we don’t know the names of those who have put the accounts together. We make a choice as to whether we believe them or not.
You have fallen victim to (post?)modernist revisionism GDR. There is no doubt about who wrote the gospel accounts, the names were assigned back when people knew who wrote them, and there are references to each of them in other NT accounts.
And except for Luke and the fact that Mark repeats some information from Matthew's gospel, and that any of them may include some well known information about Jesus whether or not it was personally witnessed, they ARE eyewitness accounts, that is, written by men who were with Jesus and knew Him personally.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 12:48 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 1:52 PM Faith has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 395 of 1324 (701443)
06-19-2013 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by New Cat's Eye
06-18-2013 4:58 PM


Re: Eyewitnesses to Jesus
I'm sure Tiger Wood's dad said all those things about him too.
Yeah I guess there is legend written about him, which I of course don't believe. But other than that, his history is nothing supernatural.
Can the same be said for Jesus? Was he a regular guy that a few people decided to write legends of?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-18-2013 4:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-19-2013 11:16 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 396 of 1324 (701444)
06-19-2013 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by GDR
06-19-2013 12:48 AM


Re: Resurrection
We can assess the accounts just as we can any other historical account.
Yes we can. From this we can confirm that some rely on the same source or are rehashings of others. Also, there are vast disagreements between them.
Ultimately we do not know who wrote them. Historical researchers rely on original source and provenance. If we want to throw that out we can pretend the books of the bible are historical.
The NT accounts are evidence which as I said we can accept or reject.
They are not evidence. They should be judged in comparison with other sources we have from the period. If nothing supports it we cannot consider it evidence.
They can be accepted on faith alone.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 12:48 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 2:01 PM Theodoric has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 397 of 1324 (701445)
06-19-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by GDR
06-18-2013 5:40 PM


Re: Resurrection
As I have pointed out there is evidence which we can accept or reject in the Biblical accounts.
Listen, you don't have to keep repeating something that is obvious in all cases. ALL evidence is such that you can accept or reject it.
What we are discussing is the evidence itself.
Relativity and QM goes against my sense of reality and I think both of us accept those findings.
Neither QM or Relativity operate in any place other than reality. So it doesn't go against your sense of reality. It's just something you've probably never understood. But that is not the same thing as saying this stuff defies physics.
The fact that life came from inorganic elements is not something that is part of our experience of reality.
Well where the fuck did it take place?! How can basic chemistry and the emergence of single celled organisms defy our experience of reality? You're not making sense man.
We see planets develop we see evolution on this planet, we see chemistry at work, we've even understood the crazy world of QM. Elements bonding to form a simple organism are no more complex than any of that. It's probably happened countless times throughout the universe.
Or is it that far fetched of a process to you that the only way you can imagine it happening is to invoke an invisible being that can magically make it happen?
Sure if you are a strict materialist. It all depends on where we are on the spectrum of beliefs between hard core atheist and theist.
You operate in a world of strict materialism. Admit it. You wouldn't take to jump off a building and pray for wings, right? You don't go around thinking the Sun won't come up or gravity will ever cease, right?
Where on the spectrum do you fall when it comes to flying unicorns?
I hesitate to make this argument as my knowledge of physics is slim, but as I understand it the laws of physics didn't seem to apply at T=0 and to an unimaginably small fraction of a second after that. The laws had to come into existence somehow from a time where it seems that the laws weren't suspended but didn't even exist at all, or at least in the manner that we know them.
You should have gone with your initial feelings of not making this argument as it is a mess of things you once read or heard while here at EvC. Before T=0 the laws of QM apply. Still laws. Still very much centered in reality.
So again, the laws of physics have never been suspended. So why would you start with the premise that they can be suspended? Remember, we're talking about the macro world also, not the micro world. I'm talking about the laws as they relfect on the macro world where relativity applies.
The writers of the Gospels and the Epistles.
I don't know if you know how this works but a single source can't confirm it's own claims.
We do not know that nature has the capabilities to cause simple inorganic elements to create incredibly complex living cells.
Sure we do. Because it wasn't on this planet at one point, then it was on this planet. The fossil record shows this.
What else are we to conclude?
Your answer can't be anything you can imagine or believe exists without any evidence. So, with the evidence at hand, you see no living cells, then you do. What do you concluded?
My perception of reality is that the idea that we just happen to exist with intelligence as a result of a fortunate combination of base elements is highly improbable and that it is much more probable that life came about because of intelligent input.
As complex as you feel life and intelligence are, saying they came about from basic chemistry and a gradual process of evolution is not improbable, since there is evidence for evolution & chemistry.
Imagining an invisible intellegent being that just appeared out of nowhere and created the universe is so improbable that it is ridiculous. However improbable you feel natural processes are supernatural processes are even more improbable since we have not a single piece of evidence for something supernatural.
I guess you can make the argument that my thinking is circular but then so is yours when you start with the premise that there is no god.
I'm glad you see it is circular. That has been my point the entire time. Glad you finally admit it.
I don't start off with the premise that flying unicorns exist either. Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean I now have to accept or reject it. You're the one making the claim therefore the burden is on you to show proof for it.
What part of yes don’t you understand? I don’t think you actually read my response.
I don't think you understand what you wrote. I asked you about single celled organisms and you brought up humans and consciousness.
That's why I had to ask you the question again.
From single celled organisms to humans there is a very evidenced fossil record of a gradual evolution. I hope you're not disputing that evolution happens. So we know how humans and intelligence emerged.
My question is dealing with the period BEFORE that. The emergence of non-conscious single celled organisms.
So again I'll ask, for the third time and think about it before you answer so you don't answer something I'm not asking about.
Do you think basic chemistry that leads to single celled organisms is more complex than what it takes for planets, stars and solar systems to form?
And if you say yes again, then please explain what is it about their process that makes it less complex than basic chemistry?
One other point is that Jesus’ resurrection came out of a Jewish context. Here is a short article on resurrection by N T Wright.
We can move on past this. You have already admitted that the stories originate in mythology and that the story of the Jesus' resurrection is not unique to Jesus. So I feel I've done what I set out to do initially.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by GDR, posted 06-18-2013 5:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 06-19-2013 1:54 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 405 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 3:35 PM onifre has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 398 of 1324 (701448)
06-19-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by onifre
06-19-2013 10:15 AM


Re: Eyewitnesses to Jesus
Can the same be said for Jesus? Was he a regular guy that a few people decided to write legends of?
I don't know. It's possible.
I just thought that Alexander the Great wasn't a very good example to make your point. Your point, itself, I don't really have a problem with. Carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by onifre, posted 06-19-2013 10:15 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 399 of 1324 (701452)
06-19-2013 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
05-04-2013 7:13 PM


Why the ressurection?
I was trying to understand "My Beliefs - GDR" a bit more.
I started with a question "why is the resurrection so important to GDR"?
I then read through a bunch of your posts in this thread. I pretty much answered my own question, but then it sprang forth additional questions. And, since this is the thread about what you believe, I thought I'd ask.
From what I can tell the resurrection, to you, is a confirmation that God/Jesus Christ/Christianity is the one true religion and describes the truth about the world and afterlife.
It is not, however, attached to you "being a good person and helping your fellow man".
That is something that you find important and would do regardless of the veracity of the resurrection?
It's just that the resurrection confirms that Christianity is the correct guide to go about doing this, so that's why you adhere to the Bible and the afterlife as described by the Bible.
Is that about right?
Assuming that's correct...
My question becomes "why does GDR care about the veracity of Christianity"?
That is, if GDR thinks it's important to be a good person regardless of the resurrection... and Jesus' message is to have faith in things like love, peace, forgiveness, mercy and justice... then doesn't GDR already align with Jesus' message regardless of the resurrection?
Or... maybe you're just trying to answer everyone's questions because they're asking them... and this isn't as high a priority to you as the post-count about it makes it seem?
Another question is "why does GDR think that the resurrection confirms the validity of Christianity"?
Is it prophecy and fulfillment as described in the Bible?
Is it because it's a pretty big miracle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 05-04-2013 7:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 5:45 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 400 of 1324 (701455)
06-19-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
06-19-2013 1:58 AM


Re: Resurrection
Faith writes:
You have fallen victim to (post?)modernist revisionism GDR. There is no doubt about who wrote the gospel accounts, the names were assigned back when people knew who wrote them, and there are references to each of them in other NT accounts.
The point is though that it doesn't matter if we know that it was Matthew who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. It was written at least 50 years after the resurrection so it is highly unlikely that it is the Matthew talked about in the Gospels who wrote it.
What is quite probable is that it would be somebody who wrote out the accounts based on what the followers of Matthew would have had to say about what Matthew had taught.
Faith writes:
And except for Luke and the fact that Mark repeats some information from Matthew's gospel, and that any of them may include some well known information about Jesus whether or not it was personally witnessed, they ARE eyewitness accounts, that is, written by men who were with Jesus and knew Him personally.
I would agree that they are written based on the what the eye-witnesses had written or remembered of the life of Jesus and His teachings.
I'd make the point that it is highly improbable that someone would compile these accounts at least one generation later if there wasn't considerable agreement on the facts of the resurrection.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 06-19-2013 1:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 06-19-2013 3:23 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 401 of 1324 (701456)
06-19-2013 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by onifre
06-19-2013 11:02 AM


Re: Resurrection
This isn't particularly to onifre but to everybody who has basically his point of view.
I don't know if you know how this works but a single source can't confirm it's own claims.
This has been answered over and over. The Bible is only a single source because it's been put together that way in recent times, but in reality it's a collection of 66 separate writings by some 40 different authors over something like 1500 years. For all of them to build on one another as they do is evidence in itself of what they are saying.
All you guys are doing is letting your prejudice against the supernatural dictate your view of the evidence. You refuse to believe it even possible so you demand an impossible level of evidence for it, which you wouldn't accept even if it were supplied because you are that committed to your rejection of anything otherworldly.
Whatever evidence is offered gets trounced. Tacitus is dead in the water. Not necessarily because his report isn't authentic extrabiblical witness but because you all DON'T WANT IT TO BE.
Would you even accept a miracle done before your eyes? Chances are you wouldn't, you'd explain it away somehow or other. So what WOULD convince you of supernatural claims? My guess is nothing. You've effectively cut yourself off from the possibility.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by onifre, posted 06-19-2013 11:02 AM onifre has not replied

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


Message 402 of 1324 (701457)
06-19-2013 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Theodoric
06-19-2013 10:26 AM


Re: Resurrection
Theodoric writes:
Yes we can. From this we can confirm that some rely on the same source or are rehashings of others. Also, there are vast disagreements between them.
Yes, they are compilations of original source material and so it would be expected that some of the material would cross over and we would expect that some of the time-lines don't match up.
There are vast disagreements but there are some inconsistencies. As I've said before I would be suspicious if there weren't inconsistencies as then it would indicate collusion in an effort to make a fabrication look authentic.
Theodoric writes:
They are not evidence. They should be judged in comparison with other sources we have from the period. If nothing supports it we cannot consider it evidence.
They can be accepted on faith alone.
There are several sources in the Bible. There are the 4 Gospels which I agree share some of the same sources but certainly not all, and ther are the Epistles.
I agree that it is faith in the end, but it is evidenced faith.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Theodoric, posted 06-19-2013 10:26 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2013 3:18 PM GDR has replied
 Message 407 by Theodoric, posted 06-19-2013 5:36 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 403 of 1324 (701463)
06-19-2013 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by GDR
06-19-2013 2:01 PM


Re: Resurrection
GDR writes:
There are vast disagreements but there are some inconsistencies. As I've said before I would be suspicious if there weren't inconsistencies as then it would indicate collusion in an effort to make a fabrication look authentic.
This is one of my favourite heads I win, tails you lose arguments. The inconsistencies and contradictions prove its veracity!
It's supposed to be the Word of God - you'd have thought he could have done a tad better., All the inconsistencies and contradictions actually tell us that it's the word of error prone man.
God sends his son down to earth and has him killed for us, then doesn't leave any trace of himself behind, not a single word of his own that would actually help people get his message? Instead he leaves it to a bunch of unknown peope 75-150 years later to write some stories then allows a council of politicians to cherry pick the ones they like and discard the others?
Come on, that's no way to run a sweetshop..

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 2:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-19-2013 4:47 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 409 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 6:41 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 404 of 1324 (701465)
06-19-2013 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by GDR
06-19-2013 1:52 PM


Re: Resurrection
I agree that we don't HAVE to know who the authors were but there is no reason whatever to doubt the authorship accepted by the early church. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Matthew himself wrote Matthew etc. There is no reason to think any of the gospels were written much later than say a decade or two past the resurrection because they were written to inform the new churches that were springing up all over the Mediterranean and Middle East, and that was going strong much earlier than 50 years after the resurrection.
If Matthew had been written as late as you claim he would most certainly have reported on the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and he did not. That is one major event that helps to date NT books.
I'd make the point that it is highly improbable that someone would compile these accounts at least one generation later if there wasn't considerable agreement on the facts of the resurrection.
That's a reasonable point but it also holds true for an earlier writing, and there was a veritable explosion of new churches springing up and the gospels being circulated and copied long before a whole generation had passed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 1:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 6:50 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 405 of 1324 (701466)
06-19-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by onifre
06-19-2013 11:02 AM


onifre writes:
Yeah I guess if you want to believe you live in a world where the laws of physics are suspended every now and again, even without evidence and especially when that goes against your own experience of reality, you can accept miracles and the supernatural.
GDR writes:
As I have pointed out there is evidence which we can accept or reject in the Biblical accounts.
onifre writes:
Listen, you don't have to keep repeating something that is obvious in all cases. ALL evidence is such that you can accept or reject it.
What we are discussing is the evidence itself.
As you can see in the first quote you had consistently said that the Bible wasn’t evidence so I kept saying that of course it is. Now when you finally agree that the Bible is evidence you accuse me of repeating myself. However I agree, the discussion should be about the evidence itself.
GDR writes:
Relativity and QM goes against my sense of reality and I think both of us accept those findings.
onifre writes:
Neither QM or Relativity operate in any place other than reality. So it doesn't go against your sense of reality. It's just something you've probably never understood. But that is not the same thing as saying this stuff defies physics.
I never said that QM or Relativity defies physics, and we now know that they represent reality but actual reality that modern physics has opened up to us defies our sense of reality. As I said Einstein rejected QM for many years for that reason. (Spooky action at a distance.)
onifre writes:
We see planets develop we see evolution on this planet, we see chemistry at work, we've even understood the crazy world of QM. Elements bonding to form a simple organism are no more complex than any of that. It's probably happened countless times throughout the universe.
A simple organism as you put it is hardly simple. Just go through this wiki site on the cell We can see how planets developed, we can combine the various elements chemically and see the results, and we can observe to a degree the world of QM but we do not see or have any record of base elements becoming living cells. New cells are formed from pre- existing cells through the process of mitosis, and then even from that how living cells became creatures having consciousness and eventually intelligence and morality.
onifre writes:
Or is it that far fetched of a process to you that the only way you can imagine it happening is to invoke an invisible being that can magically make it happen? You operate in a world of strict materialism. Admit it. You wouldn't take to jump off a building and pray for wings, right? You don't go around thinking the Sun won't come up or gravity will ever cease, right?
Right
onifre writes:
Where on the spectrum do you fall when it comes to flying unicorns?
Atheistic on that one.
onifre writes:
I don't know if you know how this works but a single source can't confirm it's own claims.
It isn’t a single source. It is a collection of books.
onifre writes:
Sure we do. Because it wasn't on this planet at one point, then it was on this planet. The fossil record shows this.
What else are we to conclude?
Your answer can't be anything you can imagine or believe exists without any evidence. So, with the evidence at hand, you see no living cells, then you do. What do you concluded?
I answered that earlier in this post in answer to your other question about invisible beings.
onifre writes:
As complex as you feel life and intelligence are, saying they came about from basic chemistry and a gradual process of evolution is not improbable, since there is evidence for evolution & chemistry.
I also addressed that earlier in this post.
onifre writes:
Imagining an invisible intellegent being that just appeared out of nowhere and created the universe is so improbable that it is ridiculous. However improbable you feel natural processes are supernatural processes are even more improbable since we have not a single piece of evidence for something supernatural.
I haven’t claimed that an invisible intelligent being appeared out of nowhere. It is my belief that an intelligent agency, which I call God, has always exited and is responsible for our existence. Whether or not He created the universe is another discussion as after a discussion with Straggler earlier in this thread I view that question a little differently.
As to which is more improbable we simply disagree.
onifre writes:
I don't start off with the premise that flying unicorns exist either. Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean I now have to accept or reject it. You're the one making the claim therefore the burden is on you to show proof for it.
I am not trying to prove my beliefs. I am simply trying to explain why I believe what I do from a rational point of view. I also believe because of life experiences, but that is I agree a subjective view of why I had those experiences. I outlined one in this post earlier. Message 9
onifre writes:
Do you think basic chemistry that leads to single celled organisms is more complex than what it takes for planets, stars and solar systems to form?
And if you say yes again, then please explain what is it about their process that makes it less complex than basic chemistry?
Again, yes. Planets, stars and solar systems are all simply base elements and simple combinations are just that. The formation of a single celled organism that has within it the ability and knowledge to evolve into sentient beings capable of morality and all of the other things that mankind has been able to accomplish is far more complex.
onifre writes:
We can move on past this. You have already admitted that the stories originate in mythology and that the story of the Jesus' resurrection is not unique to Jesus. So I feel I've done what I set out to do initially.
That’s quite a jump. Yes there are mythological stories in the Bible. I’ll reqoute CS Lewis.
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
You have to specify which stories you are referring to.
The term resurrection is used in numerous other instances but the resurrection of Jesus in the form it took is unique to Jesus. The closest would be from early Judaism where for the Jews who believed in resurrection believed it was for the Jewish nation at the end of time where they would all be resurrected together. Within Judaism there was also the metaphorical belief where resurrection was used to denote the Jews regaining control over the promised land.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by onifre, posted 06-19-2013 11:02 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 3:25 AM 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