Hitch is dead

I did agree to use your contention that the Good Samaritan is fiction and went with that. By your definition I agree that the snake story is fiction, (as in a metaphor) however I obviously disagree that the resurrection is fiction. You are right that I don't like them but I have reason to reject them. Firstly once again, the Bible isn't simply one book and each book can and should be understood on their own merits.I start with the belief that God's nature can be seen perfectly embodied by Jesus. So when I look at the accounts of God ordering genocide and public stoning I can see that it is consistently at odds with what we see in the teachings of Jesus, therefore I reject them.People like Bart Ehrman rejected their Christian faith on the grounds that he found that the suffering in the world is inconsistent with a loving god. I have considerable sympathy with that POV however I remain a Christian as I still believe that God has given us the will and the ability to mitigate much of the world's suffering, and that is what we are all called to. I also believe that this life isn't the end and that there is better to come.

There are many things about that article that I concur with. BTW, I reads and listen to a number of scholars who would agree with Carrier. In the last few days I've listened to and read a considerable amount of what Bart Ehrman has to say.I agree that it all is ultimately about belief, however I don't agree that it is unevidenced belief, but I do agree that it isn't conclusive.I don't have a problem agreeing to the point that many of the events around the resurrection don't line up in the Gospels. Even Ehrman agreed that the authors believed in what they wrote, which is not to say they got it right.I realize that there are theories of how Christian belief began without the resurrection being historical. In the end, IMHO, the only truly plausible reason for the rise of Christian belief is "belief" that God bodily raised Jesus into a new or renewed form of physicality. They may have been wrong in their beliefs, but it is hard to conceive of how they could have gotten a major event like that wrong. The specifics of events before and after the crucifixion were written by fallible humans and as a result they won't line up perfectly. That just isn't a problem for me.My Christian beliefs flow from the idea that God is good, that mankind is called to do all that we can to alleviate suffering and that God resurrected Jesus confirming that we can understand God's nature by looking at what we know of the man Jesus. Everything else I believe about my faith flows from that.

Frankly, it is just as baffling to me that there are those like yourself that are materialists. I can't comprehend the belief that life ultimately has only mindless origins. I can't muster up that kind of faith.

Not believing in materialism is NOT a belief in something else; it is just a non-belief in materialsim. Maybe there isn't a god, who knows? Here is the definition for materialism.

quote:

---

the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

---

It isn't a matter of how far back you go. The doctrine, (and all doctrine requires belief), is that there is only matter. I was simply arguing for a theistic position, and yes my personal beliefs extend to Christianity. Yes, there are discrepancies in the detail of the NT accounts but just as you contend that the resurrection is impossibly unlikely to be true I contend that the rise of Christian belief is highly unlikely to be true if the resurrection isn't historical truth. However, in the post you responded to I only was talking about materialism as opposed to theism. IMHO the materialist position is irrational.

OK then we have reached one point of agreement. Yeh!! That is not a rational comparison. There is no evidence for leprechauns but there is evidence for at least a deistic god. The fact that life exists at all is evidence for at least a deistic god. Of course I'd go further and say that the fact that there is not only life, but sentient life is strong evidence for at least a deistic god.If we take that evidence and conclude that we are created by the intelligence of that deistic god then we are in a position to consider a theistic god. If we are the result of intelligence then it seems reasonable to consider that our intelligence is somehow an extension of the original intelligence that is responsible for life. When we as humans create something with intention we do so with a purpose in mind. By extension then I suggest that it is reasonable to conclude that we were created for a purpose. That being the case then the idea that a deistic god who created us and then ignored us isn't as reasonable as a belief theistic god who created us and is still involved with what he/she has created.I have now IMHO given a rational reason to believe in a theistic god. I'm not saying that it is conclusive but only that it is reasonable.As you know I go a step further though. If then, we have an intelligent theistic god that has created life with a purpose then I don't see it as a stretch to accept the concept of resurrection into a new and renewed form of existence. The resurrection if nothing else is evidence that Jesus' life based on unconditional love, is evidence of the life that we are called to. Also the resurrection is evidence that the purpose for our lives extends beyond the life that we know. What that life will be like is essentially a mystery but it appears that unconditional love will be a basic ingredient of it. If the heart and mind of God is interwoven with our consciousness then it is simply part of our being and would be invisible to us.

Life exists and there has to be an underlying cause, whether it is by chance through mindless processes or intelligence. As we are sentient beings then I contend that the reason that life exists is more likely to be intelligent than mindless. Life itself is evidence from which we draw subjective conclusions.

Fair enough, but that just means that god is a leprechaun.

Tangle, you call yourself an atheist. I'm looking at trying to understandhow you differentiate between atheism and materialism.Here is the definition for atheism.

quote:

---

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

---

We already looked at this definition of materialsim.

quote:

---

the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

---

If there are no gods then what else is there besides matter. Aren't the two terms synonymous. It is fair to say that as an atheist you don't believe in any god that is part of any particular religion. But then if you hold to that distinction it would mean that an atheist is one who believes in an unknown god. You say that we can't know one way or the other, so shouldn't you be classified as agnostic as opposed to atheistic?

Polycarp was executed by the Romans in 155AD at age 86.

How would you define the gods that you don't believe in?

I guess that I am trying to distinguish your understanding of atheism from my understanding of agnosticism.I think that you have said that you can't reject the possibility that there is an intelligent creator of life, but that you don't believe it to be the case. So on one hand you don't believe in a creative intelligence of any description making you a materialist/atheist, but then you say that you can't reject the idea that such an entity exists making you agnostic.I guess I'm asking - which is it?

here is an excerpt from a writing of Eusebius. Also. Papias was a contemporay of Polycarb and interacted with John.

quote:

---

In the letter to Florinus, wihch we have spoken of above, Irenaeus again mentions his intercourse with Polycarp, and says: 'These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These opinions not even the heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard anything of this kind he would have cried out, and shut his ears, and said according to his custom, 'O good God, to what time hast thou preserved me that I should endure this?' He would have fled even from the place in which he was seated or standing when he heard such words. And from his letters which he sent either to the neighboring churches, strengthening them, or to some of the brethren, exhorting and warning them, this can be made plain." So says Irenaeus.

---

quote:

---

in the following words:

​

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

---

I guess inquiring minds want to know. Why do we exist? Are we the result of nothing but mindless processes or are the processes the result of a pre-existing intelligence?

I have often said to Faith, (I hope she gets allowed back), is that it is Christianity not Bibleianity. My faith is based on Jesus although much of what I understand about Jesus is from a Bible compiled by hundreds of fallible human beings over hundreds of years.My views of the nature of God is that in humans, and even in other creatures, we see a basic tug on our consciousness where we understand that we really should love others as we love ourselves even though we usually succumb to being primarily concerned with number one. This is consistent with Jesus saying the theme of the whole NT that all of the laws hang on the premise of self giving love.So. like I said earlier when the Bible says that God committed and commanded genocide, I don't necessarily disagree with the historicity of the event, but I do disagree with the idea that it was divinely ordered or committed.Succinctly, I don't start with the Bible, I start with Jesus when I want to understand the nature of God, so I contend that I don't have it backwards.