RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded.

RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/10/2008 10:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: frankman I guess this proves salvation in Christ can only be obtained by faith. To somewhat rephrase your question I`ll reverse it. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] What physical evidence do you have that Jesus` bones are still in a grave somewhere today? There are books out there that confirm to us that a spiritual Rabbi by the name of Jesus Christ was on earth 2000 years ago in the land of Palestine. This is not only confirmed by the Bible writings, but also by secular historians like Josephus who wrote about a man from Galilee who claimed to be the Christ. History also confirms to us that this Christ who claimed He was crucified but arose from from the dead three days later has had a great following of people called "Christians" that exist even today. If you need physical evidence of this I`m sure you`ll find some Christ followers even in your own city. Also throughout history Christians have not been the most loved people in the world. So all the unbelievers then and now would have to do to end this sect and it`s beliefs is to produce the body of Jesus. We don't have the grave locations of a greater percentage of people who have ever died. Shall we assume that, unless we can produce 100 billion skeletons, only the people of whom we do have skeletons ever died? If you can point me towards Jesus' final resting place, I'll go take a look and see if there's anything there. Give me a co-ordinate and a reason you believe that's the likely spot, and I'll see what I can do. Historians generally agree that Jesus was a real person. They do not agree that he performed miracles any more than Satya Sai Baba does. They do not agree that he was resurrected. They do not agree with this because there is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim. History does not confirm that Jesus rose from the dead, merely that people believe he did. If you're going to claim that the existence of Christians is proof of Jesus' divinity, you must believe that the existence of Shinto means that every rock, tree, and animal has an everlasting and sentient soul. You must believe that the Dalai Lama is the re-incarnation of the previous, etc. etc. etc... Argumentum ad Populum is not a valid argument. Just because people believe something does not make it true. Do a Google/Wiki search of "Cargo Cults" for an example of what I mean. quote: Now I know this is somewhat not logical to do today because we do not know the DNA of Jesus. Yet looking back at history, as much as the Romans and the Jewish religious leaders detested Jesus and His followers way back then, don`t you think they would have build a monument over Jesus` body to prove to all forever His body is still in the grave. We would have books written today denying the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus that would have made our Bible`s extinct. Yet they can not do this. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] WHY? [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] When Jesus arose from the grave He did not go directly to heaven. He wondered around Palistine for some 40 days before assenting into heaven. Many people who saw Him die later also saw Him alive during those 40 days. This fact of this physical evidence has made it impossible for anybody then and now to logically come up with any physical evidence that Jesus is still in the grave today. From my understanding, the leaders did not see Jesus as anything special. He was viewed as a heretic, and so was killed. It was standard practice for the Romans to bury the victims of crucification in mass graves. If the treatments of Jesus as recorded in the Bible are accurate (Using nails instead of bindings of the cross, whippings, taunting, stone-throwing civilians, etc...), are they going to afford him a luxury not afforded to any other victim? No, they're going to throw his body into a mass grave and forget about him, not hand his body over to his family. There's not exactly a good way to pull a man with "no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him," out of a mass grave and claim it was Christ. Even if they did, would the Christians have simply given up preaching and gone home? For all we know they did produce the body, it wouldn't have helped dampen Christianity. We would not have books written today denying the historical evidence of the resurrection because for over a thousand years the church controlled practically everything. They didn't let any heresy survive their scourge. Why would they let anything that contradicted them survive? Just as the leaders of Islam have wiped out all hints of culture before Muhammad, the leaders of the church had destroyed much history to defend their position. Paul's epistles are some of the earliest books of the NT. He never said that Jesus resurrected in bodily form. (He used egeiro "to awaken" vs. anastasis, which was used for resurrection). The accounts of Paul seem to indicate a spiritual resurrection, as opposed to a physical one. Only in the later books is Jesus said to have resurrected physically. By that time, Christianity had started to spread. Physical evidence for or against Jesus' resurrection would have decayed. This isn't to mention that the following is also said about Jesus' death. Matthew 27:50 "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." There is as much evidence to substantiate the claim that dead saints walked into Jerusalem as there is to substantiate that Jesus did the same. There is no evidence for any of this outside of the Bible. quote: [:)] So if Jesus is still alive today, should we take the warning to us in Phil.2:10+11 seriously? "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Just a passing thought! There is no evidence for Poseidon. I will not pray to him to calm the seas. There is no evidence that Buddha was divine. I will not follow his path. There is no evidence that Jesus is alive today. I will not follow him. Give me evidence, and I may change my mind. Give me dogma and I will surely not.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/12/2008 3:16:15 PM)
quote: History does not confirm that Jesus rose from the dead, merely that people believe he did. If you're going to claim that the existence of Christians is proof of Jesus' divinity, you must believe that the existence of Shinto means that every rock, tree, and animal has an everlasting and sentient soul. You must believe that the Dalai Lama is the re-incarnation of the previous, etc. etc. etc... Argumentum ad Populum is not a valid argument. Just because people believe something does not make it true. Do a Google/Wiki search of "Cargo Cults" for an example of what I mean. It’s not simply of course, “Argumentum ad Populum”. Christianity initially depended specifically on the reality of a risen Christ, and a number of followers of Christ’s died claiming they had encountered Him – which means either they were deluded, or they died knowing full well that what they claimed was a lie. Either way, it’s not as if the resurrection of Christ could have been simply a spiritual position like pantheism or reincarnation. quote: Paul's epistles are some of the earliest books of the NT. He never said that Jesus resurrected in bodily form. (He used egeiro "to awaken" vs. anastasis, which was used for resurrection). The accounts of Paul seem to indicate a spiritual resurrection, as opposed to a physical one. Only in the later books is Jesus said to have resurrected physically. By that time, Christianity had started to spread. Physical evidence for or against Jesus' resurrection would have decayed. This isn't to mention that the following is also said about Jesus' death. Matthew 27:50 "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." There is as much evidence to substantiate the claim that dead saints walked into Jerusalem as there is to substantiate that Jesus did the same. There is no evidence for any of this outside of the Bible. Well, no – there is a clearly drawn parallel between the egeiro and anastasis: 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 12 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised (egeiro) from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection (anastasis) of the dead? And the word anastasis is clearly used by Paul in reference to the resurrection of Jesus: Romans 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection (anastasis), quote: There is no evidence for Poseidon. I will not pray to him to calm the seas. There is no evidence that Buddha was divine. I will not follow his path. There is no evidence that Jesus is alive today. I will not follow him. Give me evidence, and I may change my mind. Give me dogma and I will surely not. There is plenty of evidence; but people often are only willing to consider a particular kind of evidence, and that may not be available – that however does not mean there is no evidence.

frankman -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/12/2008 6:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude From my understanding, the leaders did not see Jesus as anything special. He was viewed as a heretic, and so was killed. It was standard practice for the Romans to bury the victims of crucification in mass graves. If the treatments of Jesus as recorded in the Bible are accurate (Using nails instead of bindings of the cross, whippings, taunting, stone-throwing civilians, etc...), are they going to afford him a luxury not afforded to any other victim? No, they're going to throw his body into a mass grave and forget about him, not hand his body over to his family. There's not exactly a good way to pull a man with "no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him," out of a mass grave and claim it was Christ. Even if they did, would the Christians have simply given up preaching and gone home? For all we know they did produce the body, it wouldn't have helped dampen Christianity. Do you really believe anybody would be brain-washed enough to die for a known lie? History states that 11 of the 12 apostles, all except John the Apostle, died as martyrs because they believed and preached what they saw, and that was the bodily resurrection of Christ. It`s hardly likely that one would die for a lie. Even Paul believed and taught the bodily death, burial and the bodily resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor. Chapter 15. Jesus was not buried in a mass grave as some would like to believe. The exact grave site may be debatable, but I can give you a general location within a good stone throw. Luke 23:53 tells us He was placed "in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid." John 19:41 tells us that both the place of His crucifixion and burial happened in a garden. "At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid." This may be Gordon`s Calvary, a place I`ve visited myself a few years ago. It is outside the city gates of old East Jerusalem. This is important because Heb.13:12 states "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through His own blood." Others say His grave may have been at the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. You can visit both sites, and guess what, you`ll find empty graves. Which site is authentic, I`m not sure. What we`re sure about is that Jesus was placed in a grave outside the gates of Jerusalem, in a garden, in an unfinished tomb hewn out of rock. Your example of the Dalai Lama`s reincarnation is a great example of how other religions vary from Christianity. Tibetan Buddhism stems from Buddha. Buddha died at age 80 and is buried in Kushinagar. If you want proof of this you`ll find his bones buried between two trees somewhere out there. Nobody has ever claimed he arose from the grave like Jesus did. The foolishness of being reincarnated yes, but not resurrected. Only Christians believe and know their founder was resurrected in bodily form and is alive today. [sm=dance.gif] As for the holy people who were raised to life in Matt.27:52, they are an example for all of us. Paul states clearly in 1 Cor.15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Your physical death here on earth is not the end of the real you. You`ll find these holy people in heaven today, but you`ll have to go there first to prove this one right. [sm=error.gif] vs. TRUTH! Remember, neither one of us can go back in time, so all our facts are based on what we read about history. We then have to make a choice to either believe by faith what we`re reading or to reject it as error. You also have to remember for every ball game played, there`s always going to be somebody out there who won`t like the final score. As a result they will try to change the final score by re-writing history. From where I come from we have a guy who just lost his seat in government and is being charged with bigotry because he is denying the historical facts of the Hitler holocaust. This highly intelligent politician is trying to change the facts of history because he doesn`t like the final score of W.W.2. So it is with the story of God and the Bible. Everything in the Bible may be backed-up with historical, prophetic, scientific, archaeolical, providential and personal facts. Yet you`ll always find people like Brown, Dennett, Paine, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Sagen and Clemens etc. who don`t like the final score of the Bible, so they`ll try their best to alter history. Yet they will fail. [sm=pirateparot.gif] If we`re still around 100 years from now nobody will be reading Brown, Dennett, Paine, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Sagen or Clemens books, however people will still be reading, believing and basing their faith on the historical facts of the Bible and what the Bible teaches us about God. TIME itself becomes evidence, as the Word of God will last forever. [:)] Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Jesus.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/13/2008 3:01:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud It’s not simply of course, “Argumentum ad Populum”. Christianity initially depended specifically on the reality of a risen Christ, and a number of followers of Christ’s died claiming they had encountered Him – which means either they were deluded, or they died knowing full well that what they claimed was a lie. Either way, it’s not as if the resurrection of Christ could have been simply a spiritual position like pantheism or reincarnation. Christianity initially depended on people believing that there was a risen Christ, not on the truth of that claim. Again, see cargo cults on how easily people will believe things that seem contrary to nature. I'm sure you can find quite a few other examples. Secondly, there is little enough known about the life of the apostles, let alone their deaths. Only two of the apostles deaths are directly recorded in cannon scripture. These two were Judas, who either hung himself (Matt 27:5) or randomly exploded (Acts 1:18), and James, who was killed by Herod with a sword to vex the Church. (Acts 12: 1-2) Judas obviously wasn't a martyr, and the Bible doesn't tell anything about James' death other than that Herod killed him. It doesn't say if he rejected Christ before the end, if he died in his sleep, anything. Certainly if the account is correct he died due to the church, but whether it was willful or not is speculation. Other apostle deaths are only recoded hundred(s) of years later, in books that were rejected from the Bible. There is, from what I can find, no extrabiblical evidence that any of the disciples were martyred. Provide evidence that they were martyred. Until then, I will consider this just another one of the myths that Christianity has generated. Why could it not have been a spiritual resurrection? They could have witnessed him 'in spirtual form', as it were. Why would their testimony be weaker if they'd seen ghost-Jesus as opposed to flesh-Jesus? quote: Well, no – there is a clearly drawn parallel between the egeiro and anastasis: 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised (egeiro) from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection (anastasis) of the dead? And the word anastasis is clearly used by Paul in reference to the resurrection of Jesus: Romans 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection (anastasis), For the Corinthians, doesn't that basically say, "Since Jesus was raised in spirit, we shall be raised in flesh."? It was a long-standing Jewish belief that there would, eventually, be a physical resurrection for the faithful Jew. If Jesus resurrected at all (as opposed to waiting until the final judgment at the end of days) that would still signify his power. As for Romans, I'm going to call an "Out of Context" on you here. For reference, here's Romans 6:1-7 " 1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. " Anastasis (Ancient Greek). The continued existence of the soul. From what I've read, it only means physical resurrection when preceded by ek or en. "ei gar sumfutoi gegonamen tw omoiwmati tou qanatou autou, alla kai thv anastasewv esomeqa;" is the original Greek translation I can find. This passage isn't clearly defined as talking about the physical resurrection of Christ. I can find other gospel using ek anastasis, but not Paul. quote: There is plenty of evidence; but people often are only willing to consider a particular kind of evidence, and that may not be available – that however does not mean there is no evidence. Evidence –noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign By which definition, pray, is there evidence for Christ's resurrection? Clearly we can't take such a extraordinary claim to be true based on a single source without corroborating evidence. What else confirms Christ's resurrection besides the Bible? Why should we believe its claims more than any other books?

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/13/2008 4:21:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: frankman Do you really believe anybody would be brain-washed enough to die for a known lie? History states that 11 of the 12 apostles, all except John the Apostle, died as martyrs because they believed and preached what they saw, and that was the bodily resurrection of Christ. It`s hardly likely that one would die for a lie. Even Paul believed and taught the bodily death, burial and the bodily resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor. Chapter 15. I believe I've dealt with this, see my post to Jhud. History doesn't state that any of the Apostles were martyred. The Bible states that one of them died in order to vex the church, but that's all. The Bible, and all reliable history, are silent on the fate of the rest. The only place that the other martyred apostles are recorded is in non-canonical gospel that was written hundred(s) of years after the fact. Paul didn't use the word anastasis, which is the word always used when speaking about physical resurrection. Ek anastasis, or en anastasis seem to be what refers to physical resurrection, and from what I can find, Paul doesn't use them. quote: Jesus was not buried in a mass grave as some would like to believe. The exact grave site may be debatable, but I can give you a general location within a good stone throw. Luke 23:53 tells us He was placed "in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid." John 19:41 tells us that both the place of His crucifixion and burial happened in a garden. "At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid." This may be Gordon`s Calvary, a place I`ve visited myself a few years ago. It is outside the city gates of old East Jerusalem. This is important because Heb.13:12 states "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through His own blood." Others say His grave may have been at the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. You can visit both sites, and guess what, you`ll find empty graves. Which site is authentic, I`m not sure. What we`re sure about is that Jesus was placed in a grave outside the gates of Jerusalem, in a garden, in an unfinished tomb hewn out of rock. So... "I don't know, but this is where I believe it to be, because that's where other people believe it to be." I might as well search for the Holy Grail in this fashion. In addition, do you really think the church would have picked an occupied tomb? They'd simply pass over any filled tomb, as that can't possibly be the right one, right? You'll never hear about the tombs they found that had people in them, because that doesn't fit the dogma. Like I said, find me Jesus' tomb, and I'll go check it out. As for, "Jesus was not buried in a mass grave as some would like to believe." Do you have anything to substantiate this claim? Find me a non-Biblical source that says that the Romans broke the mass-grave practice for a supposed heretic, and you'll have my interest. Until then, I have no reason to believe your claim. quote: Your example of the Dalai Lama`s reincarnation is a great example of how other religions vary from Christianity. Tibetan Buddhism stems from Buddha. Buddha died at age 80 and is buried in Kushinagar. If you want proof of this you`ll find his bones buried between two trees somewhere out there. Nobody has ever claimed he arose from the grave like Jesus did. The foolishness of being reincarnated yes, but not resurrected. Only Christians believe and know their founder was resurrected in bodily form and is alive today So I'll find Buddha 'somewhere between two trees,' but not Jesus 'somewhere inside some rock.' Big help there. Any why is re-incarnation any sillier than resurrection? Just because you're in a different body? Jesus was reputed to have come back in a body that had been utterly destroyed, bled out, dehydrated, and stabbed through the heart. Then the body was dead, and therefore decaying, for three days before he came back. Without evidence, I find this no less silly than the claims of Buddhism. This isn't to mention that there are modern-day claims of seeing people raise from the dead. Look up Sathya Sai Baba, who it is claimed has raised people from the dead, and performed various other miracles. If this man, who is a blatant fraud, can get millions of people to follow him in moder times, why should I believe that the people two thousand years ago were any more discerning? quote: [sm=dance.gif] As for the holy people who were raised to life in Matt.27:52, they are an example for all of us. Paul states clearly in 1 Cor.15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Your physical death here on earth is not the end of the real you. You`ll find these holy people in heaven today, but you`ll have to go there first to prove this one right. It's not Matt 27:52 that was the point, it was Matt 27:53 "And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many." So let me get this straight. Dead people, who were known to have been deceased got out of their graves, and walked into a heavily-populated urban area. They, as it says, "Appeared to many." This is on the same day that the curtain in the temple was torn in two, and the sun went black in an unscheduled eclipse for three solid hours (an impossible natural event), and a massive earthquake rocked the city and none of this was recorded anywhere else!? Sorry, but events that big don't just get passed over by historians. quote: [sm=error.gif] vs. TRUTH! Remember, neither one of us can go back in time, so all our facts are based on what we read about history. We then have to make a choice to either believe by faith what we`re reading or to reject it as error. You also have to remember for every ball game played, there`s always going to be somebody out there who won`t like the final score. As a result they will try to change the final score by re-writing history. From where I come from we have a guy who just lost his seat in government and is being charged with bigotry because he is denying the historical facts of the Hitler holocaust. This highly intelligent politician is trying to change the facts of history because he doesn`t like the final score of W.W.2. No, we believe by evidence. We know the holocaust happened because there's a massive amount of contemporary raw data about it. It was recorded, in all it's bloody detail, as it happened. It wasn't decades later that diarys were written, pictures taken, messages spread. Things weren't added later to make the story prettier. We know it happened because there is a glut of evidence for it having happened. There is no such glut for Christ's resurrection. I've not seen even a whisper of extra-Biblical evidence to support the claim. It's true that people re-write history. This is usually done because of new evidence. The saying goes that the winner writes the history books. This is true, but as time passes, the winners die as well. The historians of a new era go back an find out what really happened, from both sides of the issue. They reveal what the winners didn't. History can be revised to hide things, but it usually revised to reveal. quote: So it is with the story of God and the Bible. Everything in the Bible may be backed-up with historical, prophetic, scientific, archaeolical, providential and personal facts. Yet you`ll always find people like Brown, Dennett, Paine, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Sagen and Clemens etc. who don`t like the final score of the Bible, so they`ll try their best to alter history. Yet they will fail. [sm=pirateparot.gif] If we`re still around 100 years from now nobody will be reading Brown, Dennett, Paine, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Sagen or Clemens books, however people will still be reading, believing and basing their faith on the historical facts of the Bible and what the Bible teaches us about God. TIME itself becomes evidence, as the Word of God will last forever. No, many things in the Bible are directly contradicted by historical, scientific, and archaeological evidence. It is not the minority of experts that recognizes this, but the majority. This is the reason that non-literal interpretations of the Bible became popular in the first place. A literal reading was so blatantly contrary to truth that interpretation was the only way to make it sync with reality. People believe in the Bible based on faith. I'm fine with this. But when people tout the Bible as fact without substantiating their claim, this bothers me. Time indeed will tell. The Torah is thought to date to 1100 B.C., this encompasses 3,000 of the 140,000 years that people have been on the Earth. There are roughly 500,000,000,000 habitable year left for the Earth. Will Christianity last that long, I wonder?

frankman -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/13/2008 5:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude People believe in the Bible based on faith. I'm fine with this. But when people tout the Bible as fact without substantiating their claim, this bothers me. If you`re looking for absolute prove you won`t find it because the only discipline that we can prove with complete certainty concerning tangible things is mathematics. 3+6=9. Now that`s absolutely true. Was Winston Churchhill ever Prime Minister of England? You could give me Web sites to read on Churchill being the P.M. of England, but unless I agree to have faith in the validity of what you`re giving me to read, there is no way you can convince me or absolutely prove to me that a man like Churchill ever even existed. So it is with Christianity. It is based on faith. Once faith is there, the prove will come. Not the other way around. The biggest prove that you`ll experience as confirmation that Christianity is real is best described in Rom.5:1. "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." It`s that peace and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that will lead you to facts about Christianity that today you have no idea exist. Then too you will say "I was blind but now I see." I hope someday you will open your life to this transforming faith and experience firsthand the reality of the living Savior.

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/13/2008 6:05:01 PM)
quote: frankman: If you`re looking for absolute prove you won`t find it because the only discipline that we can prove with complete certainty concerning tangible things is mathematics. 3+6=9. Now that`s absolutely true. Was Winston Churchhill ever Prime Minister of England? You could give me Web sites to read on Churchill being the P.M. of England, but unless I agree to have faith in the validity of what you`re giving me to read, there is no way you can convince me or absolutely prove to me that a man like Churchill ever even existed. So it is with Christianity. It is based on faith. Once faith is there, the prove will come. Against the mathematical realists, most argue that mathematics is true because we say mathematics is true. Think of it this way: the axioms and relations of any formal system decide the truth of any procedure or formula devised within that system. So with math, 1+1=2 because two discreet quantities have been differentiated and a system of signs was developed to express the relationships between quantities. Now, it just so happens, for whatever reason - be it that mathematics is a description of fundamental ontology, that the relationships and quantities represent fundamental thoughts or rules of nature, etc. - that mathematical logic describes, or is perfectly isometrical to, the way we perceive the world working. But its truth is decided by the rules of mathematics, its factuality is described by its non-falsity, which is different than its "truth," if truth (in the latter sense) is conceived of as some unmediated access to a superior ontological realm. Same thing with history, only the rules have changed. Here we're dealing with languages, documents, economics, politics, and discursive systems which must be analyzed. But a description of history is a model which successfully describes the totality of documents or records or items given, and produces hypothesis of cause and effect. The belief that Churchill was the Prime Minister of England between 1951 and 1955 is a justified hypothesis describing a totality of historical items available to the historian. This is a belief, but it isn't faith in the sense it's normally used. What you're trying to do is argue from historical relativism as belief to God as belief. These two notions of belief aren't parallel. By your own standards, God wouldn't exist but would be "not non-existent." quote: The biggest prove that you`ll experience as confirmation that Christianity is real is best described in Rom.5:1. "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." It`s that peace and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that will lead you to facts about Christianity that today you have no idea exist. Then too you will say "I was blind but now I see." I hope someday you will open your life to this transforming faith and experience firsthand the reality of the living Savior. Again: neither proof, nor truth, nor fact, exists in a vacuum; since they are constituted historically, through peoples, in accordance with a particular disciplinary method and communal agreement. There isn't anything controversial about this claim. That is, "it takes two," but only if more than two exist. If you can't demonstrate something, it effectively is unverifiable and also unfalsifiable. And while nobody wants to hold criterion for cognitive semantics above the Christian's head, their dismissal (or the inability to fulfill their criterion) severs your ability to make truth-claims which extend beyond yourself in regards their content. Nothing controversial here either. If I say "x exists," but cannot demonstrate the existence of x, either logically or empirically, nothing requires another to accept it, nor even to admit it is a possibility. Fact doesn't exist in a vacuum. Calling revelatory personal experiences fact is to abuse the term. Not that they don't objectively exist, as the brain states and experience of them exist, certainly; but, as William James writes, in Varieties of Religious Experience: quote: The mystic is, in short, invulnerable, and must be left, whether we relish it or not, in undisturbed enjoyment of his creed. Faith, says Tolstoy, is that by which men live. And faith-state and mystic state are practically convertible terms. But I now proceed to add that mystics have no right to claim that we ought to accept the deliverance of their peculiar experiences, if we are ourselves outsiders and feel no private call thereto. The utmost they can ever ask of us in this life is to admit that they establish a presumption. They form a consensus and have an unequivocal outcome; and it would be odd, mystics might say, if such a unanimous type of experience should prove to be altogether wrong. At bottom, however, this would only be an appeal to numbers, like the appeal of rationalism the other way; and the appeal to numbers has no logical force. If we acknowledge it, it is for 'suggestive,' not for logical reasons: we follow the majority because to do so suits our life. But invulnerability doesn't allow you to usurp the language of hard science, the humanities, and social sciences, in order to equate your religious state with fact and create propositions with truth values.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 2:54:43 AM)
quote: Christianity initially depended on people believing that there was a risen Christ, not on the truth of that claim. Again, see cargo cults on how easily people will believe things that seem contrary to nature. I'm sure you can find quite a few other examples. Secondly, there is little enough known about the life of the apostles, let alone their deaths. Only two of the apostles deaths are directly recorded in cannon scripture. These two were Judas, who either hung himself (Matt 27:5) or randomly exploded (Acts 1:18), and James, who was killed by Herod with a sword to vex the Church. (Acts 12: 1-2) Judas obviously wasn't a martyr, and the Bible doesn't tell anything about James' death other than that Herod killed him. It doesn't say if he rejected Christ before the end, if he died in his sleep, anything. Certainly if the account is correct he died due to the church, but whether it was willful or not is speculation. Nothing you have said here changes the clearly recorded fact that the early Christians believed in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ, that there were witnesses to that fact (up to 500), that people died affirming the reality of that event, and that literally nothing about church history makes sense apart from this. quote: Why could it not have been a spiritual resurrection? They could have witnessed him 'in spirtual form', as it were. Why would their testimony be weaker if they'd seen ghost-Jesus as opposed to flesh-Jesus? I don’t know if you have actually ever read the Bible for yourself, but Scripture directly addresses that issue; Jesus has the disciples touch him to affirm His physical resurrection. quote: By which definition, pray, is there evidence for Christ's resurrection? Clearly we can't take such a extraordinary claim to be true based on a single source without corroborating evidence. What else confirms Christ's resurrection besides the Bible? Why should we believe its claims more than any other books? There are multiple sources, eyewitnesses, historical records, the existence of the Church which began exactly at the time Christ rose from the dead when His resurrection was wholly verifiable, and there are the witnesses of the billions that followed who had personal experiences with Christ. And beyond that there is the consistency with the whole of Biblical history and the effect of Christianity on lives, cultures, societies, and history since Christ’s resurrection. In fact there literally could be no more evidence than there is.

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 3:45:26 AM)
quote: Jhud: There are multiple sources, eyewitnesses, historical records, the existence of the Church which began exactly at the time Christ rose from the dead when His resurrection was wholly verifiable, and there are the witnesses of the billions that followed who had personal experiences with Christ. And beyond that there is the consistency with the whole of Biblical history and the effect of Christianity on lives, cultures, societies, and history since Christ’s resurrection. I enjoy skimming these forums, and am more taken back by frankman's, well, frankly postmodern take on things. But allow me to butt in. I think you hit the issue over its head here. Between the historical evidence and the religious experience is the fulcrum of the entire Christian enterprise. The problem is that the accuracy of the historical evidence is proclaimed, not only to record a unique occurrence, or the accuracy of an (many) eyewitnesses; it's that disbelief in everything believable becomes the criterion for accepting the suspension of the believable, which most people accept doesn't include God anywhere in the picture. Most people, myself included, see in the documents an admixture of myth, accurate historical reporting, and narrative. And the truth or falsity of the claims these documents make, similarly, doesn't bear upon metaphysical considerations of God (by and large, and in a very general sense). But your argument essentially relies upon "taking the word of" people experiencing what they consider to be non-experiential, and so claims of accuracy, of intertextual consistency, or Christianity's "affect," don't bear upon the claim that Christ rose from the dead. Not anything original, just my two cents. Wouldn't it be more fruitful to argue metaphysics instead of history? Or, wouldn't it be more beneficial to you to demonstrate how, and under what conditions, God could exist with or without the unfolding of history in a certain determinate way, instead of relying upon historical evidence to verify claims of Jesus' resurrection or the validity of God? Because personally I get stuck the minute you ("They") start using the word "God" in an indefinite way within sentences.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 5:10:50 AM)
quote: Original: Frankman Sorry, but I'm not going to reply to you. Hammurabi said it better than I can, so I'll leave you to his response. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Nothing you have said here changes the clearly recorded fact that the early Christians believed in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ, that there were witnesses to that fact (up to 500), that people died affirming the reality of that event, and that literally nothing about church history makes sense apart from this. "Recorded Fact" is pretty boisterous of you. It is a fact that it was recorded, certainly. But to claim that it is a fact that fact was recorded is unfounded unless you have documentation of which I am not aware. Apart from the Bible, I have seen no source that records any of these 500 eye-witness testimonies. A secondary source is required to verify this. Or should we just take, on faith, everything every old book says is true? Why does Church history have to make sense? Most religions travel on faith, not fact. Even if you believe Christianity to be 100% factual, you still have to cede this because you don't believe in every other religion. Obviously fiction had to creep in somewhere. Again, as cargo cults have shown, myth can grow at an astounding rate, and be believed by even those who were still alive at the time. quote: Why could it not have been a spiritual resurrection? They could have witnessed him 'in spirtual form', as it were. Why would their testimony be weaker if they'd seen ghost-Jesus as opposed to flesh-Jesus? I don’t know if you have actually ever read the Bible for yourself, but Scripture directly addresses that issue; Jesus has the disciples touch him to affirm His physical resurrection. I am fully aware of this fact. I was, however, referring specifically to Paul because his are, from what I've read, the earliest written works. The closer to the events the writing, the less time that myth has to creep in, for memory to blur, etc... quote: There are multiple sources, eyewitnesses, historical records, the existence of the Church which began exactly at the time Christ rose from the dead when His resurrection was wholly verifiable, and there are the witnesses of the billions that followed who had personal experiences with Christ. And beyond that there is the consistency with the whole of Biblical history and the effect of Christianity on lives, cultures, societies, and history since Christ’s resurrection. In fact there literally could be no more evidence than there is. Please provide names, sources, etc... to this profound extrabiblical evidence. Like I said, I will not believe without evidence. If you have evidence, and it is compelling, I will believe. If first-hand accounts are considered reliable without secondary sources to back them up, then many religions have just gained a lot of credibility. If we're going to count personal experience as a valid form of knowledge, then every other religion on Earth has just gained a ton of credibility. Certainly you can't deny the Billions of Muslims their experiences, or the hundred of millions of Hindu theirs. If you're going to talk about history and the Bible being flush, I'd be grateful if you linked me to all of the peer-reviewed articles about how geology reveals a worldwide flood. I'd like you to link to the historical evidence that the Hebrew people migrated to, were enslaved in, and then escaped from Egypt. If we're going to include cultural effect then I suppose Shinto is true in Japan, Buddhism in China, etc... Heck, four of the days of our week are named after Norse gods, surely they have some credibility. This is another form of arugmentum ad populum. There are more Christians, so there is more Christian influence. Heck, a lot of that's derived from Judaism, so should we reject Christ because the Jewish people refuse to acknowledge him? I quite disagree that there could be no more evidence than there is. A secondary resource recording the dead walking into Jerusalem would be a good start. The impossible three hour eclipse having been noted elsewhere would certainly be persuasive. A second-hand mention of the 500 witnesses would be cool. The Bible isn't the only piece of literature from that time period to survive, but it's the only one that mentions these things happening. Again, Hammurabi said it better than I.

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 10:05:24 AM)
I agree that it would be cool if there were more evidence. It seems to me though, that Christianity, unlike atheism, is totally up front about embracing faith. Atheism is the belief in the unknowable, on the other hand. Atheism says that there is no God. Since atheists havn't been everywhere, havn't seen everything, and don't know everything, it's not even good logic. I don't believe in E.T.'s, but I don't claim to know they don't exist. As was said early, there is some evidence. Some just don't find it compelling. In any case, it takes faith to be a Christian. It takes more to be an atheist.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 10:11:23 AM)
quote: I think you hit the issue over its head here. Between the historical evidence and the religious experience is the fulcrum of the entire Christian enterprise. The problem is that the accuracy of the historical evidence is proclaimed, not only to record a unique occurrence, or the accuracy of an (many) eyewitnesses; it's that disbelief in everything believable becomes the criterion for accepting the suspension of the believable, which most people accept doesn't include God anywhere in the picture. Most people, myself included, see in the documents an admixture of myth, accurate historical reporting, and narrative. And the truth or falsity of the claims these documents make, similarly, doesn't bear upon metaphysical considerations of God (by and large, and in a very general sense). But your argument essentially relies upon "taking the word of" people experiencing what they consider to be non-experiential, and so claims of accuracy, of intertextual consistency, or Christianity's "affect," don't bear upon the claim that Christ rose from the dead. Well, I disagree that this is all I am doing; as a matter of fact, I find incredible consistency between 'the word of' certain people, historical impacts, our understanding of nature, the nature of humans, and my own personal experiences - so that combination of evidence, which really is a sampling of every sort of evidence, and the consistency between them is what I base the reasonableness of my belief in Christ on. One may not find such things sufficient, but no one can say there is no warrant for my belief.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 10:25:28 AM)
quote: "Recorded Fact" is pretty boisterous of you. It is a fact that it was recorded, certainly. But to claim that it is a fact that fact was recorded is unfounded unless you have documentation of which I am not aware. Apart from the Bible, I have seen no source that records any of these 500 eye-witness testimonies. A secondary source is required to verify this. Or should we just take, on faith, everything every old book says is true? Why does Church history have to make sense? Most religions travel on faith, not fact. Even if you believe Christianity to be 100% factual, you still have to cede this because you don't believe in every other religion. Obviously fiction had to creep in somewhere. Again, as cargo cults have shown, myth can grow at an astounding rate, and be believed by even those who were still alive at the time. I have never understood the ‘apart from the Bible’ dismissal. The New Testament is the collection of eyewitness accounts and early records of those who experienced a resurrected Christ – the fact that they are collected together doesn’t make them less reliable, but more so – and there is a clear connection between those documents, the founding of the church, and the universality of the experience that followed for the next 2000 years. You may not find such evidence persuasive, and that is of course your prerogative; but you cannot say there is no evidence. quote: I am fully aware of this fact. I was, however, referring specifically to Paul because his are, from what I've read, the earliest written works. The closer to the events the writing, the less time that myth has to creep in, for memory to blur, etc... Paul affirmed the testimony of the apostles, and the resurrection of Christ, and the witnesses thereof. In fact, he shared as a traveling companion one of the writers of the Gospels, Luke. So there is no disparity there, only confirmation. quote: Please provide names, sources, etc... to this profound extrabiblical evidence. Like I said, I will not believe without evidence. If you have evidence, and it is compelling, I will believe. If first-hand accounts are considered reliable without secondary sources to back them up, then many religions have just gained a lot of credibility. If we're going to count personal experience as a valid form of knowledge, then every other religion on Earth has just gained a ton of credibility. Certainly you can't deny the Billions of Muslims their experiences, or the hundred of millions of Hindu theirs. I didn’t say ‘extra-biblical evidence, because the fact that such accounts are gathered in the Bible is irrelevant; the accounts exist, they a from multiple witness and confirmed in the time they were written, and confirmed by the penalty many of those witnesses suffered for their testimony, which was frequently death. Your unwillingness to except them is a reflection of your own desires, not the sufficiency of the evidence. quote: If you're going to talk about history and the Bible being flush, I'd be grateful if you linked me to all of the peer-reviewed articles about how geology reveals a worldwide flood. I'd like you to link to the historical evidence that the Hebrew people migrated to, were enslaved in, and then escaped from Egypt. Well, geology records many large floods in the Middle east, and genetics records the near extinction of the human species; how these may or may not correspond to God’s intent is a matter of faith, but the evidence exist none the less. quote: If we're going to include cultural effect then I suppose Shinto is true in Japan, Buddhism in China, etc... Heck, four of the days of our week are named after Norse gods, surely they have some credibility. This is another form of arugmentum ad populum. There are more Christians, so there is more Christian influence. Heck, a lot of that's derived from Judaism, so should we reject Christ because the Jewish people refuse to acknowledge him? I quite disagree that there could be no more evidence than there is. A secondary resource recording the dead walking into Jerusalem would be a good start. The impossible three hour eclipse having been noted elsewhere would certainly be persuasive. A second-hand mention of the 500 witnesses would be cool. The Bible isn't the only piece of literature from that time period to survive, but it's the only one that mentions these things happening. As I pointed out, you may not find the evidence provided sufficient, but you cannot say as you have said previously there is no evidence – I have provided multiple lines of evidence which I think both confirm the objective reality of the events and the consistency of human experience and knowledge, and I find such evidence sufficient to warrant belief – whether you do is a matter of choice, a choice we all must make.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 10:53:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I have never understood the ‘apart from the Bible’ dismissal. The New Testament is the collection of eyewitness accounts and early records of those who experienced a resurrected Christ – the fact that they are collected together doesn’t make them less reliable, but more so – and there is a clear connection between those documents, the founding of the church, and the universality of the experience that followed for the next 2000 years. I'm okay with the Bible being evidence of the resurrection of Christ. I don't think that, by itself, it's very strong evidence, but it is evidence and should be considered. But how does their being collected together make those accounts more reliable? What if there were extra-Biblical accounts, not written by the writers of the NT books, but by some "nobody" who happened to be one of the 500 witnesses? (Or are there? I'm no historian) If we compare the corroboration between two NT accounts, vs. between one NT account and one extra-Biblical account, wouldn't the latter be stronger evidence? quote: Paul affirmed the testimony of the apostles, and the resurrection of Christ, and the witnesses thereof. In fact, he shared as a traveling companion one of the writers of the Gospels, Luke. So there is no disparity there, only confirmation. Wouldn't the case be stronger if he had never met Luke? quote: I didn’t say ‘extra-biblical evidence, because the fact that such accounts are gathered in the Bible is irrelevant; the accounts exist, they a from multiple witness and confirmed in the time they were written, and confirmed by the penalty many of those witnesses suffered for their testimony, which was frequently death. Again, not to discount the accounts entirely, but wouldn't an account from a "nobody"--an insignificant other--be a stronger corroboration? There are some parallels here to early Mormon history--including martyrdom. quote: Your unwillingness to except them is a reflection of your own desires, not the sufficiency of the evidence. Desire is a two-edged sword.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 11:12:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad I agree that it would be cool if there were more evidence. It seems to me though, that Christianity, unlike atheism, is totally up front about embracing faith. Atheism is the belief in the unknowable, on the other hand. Atheism says that there is no God. Since atheists havn't been everywhere, havn't seen everything, and don't know everything, it's not even good logic. I don't believe in E.T.'s, but I don't claim to know they don't exist. I may be in the minority with this, but I do believe that any stance one takes on these things requires faith. One type of faith that they all require, IMO, is a faith in one's own ability of assessment. For a believer who experiences a confirmation of the Holy Ghost, there must be a faith that what they are experiencing is in fact the Holy Ghost. Believers must also have faith in their own ablility to interpret scripture correctly, as well as a faith in the claims that certain scriptural explanations of those experienes are accurate. Non-believers also exercise faith in their own ability to assess: to explain certain "religious experiences" as functions of the mind requires a faith in one's understanding of how the mind works. There may be a faith in science's capacity to explain phenomena in materialistic terms. Etc. There are varying levels of justification that can be given to different leaps of faith. I don't imagine us all agreeing on which leap deserves which level. quote: As was said early, there is some evidence. Some just don't find it compelling. In any case, it takes faith to be a Christian. It takes more to be an atheist. Not sure if faith can be quantified. Could you expand on this?

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 12:04:41 PM)
quote: I'm okay with the Bible being evidence of the resurrection of Christ. I don't think that, by itself, it's very strong evidence, but it is evidence and should be considered. But how does their being collected together make those accounts more reliable? What if there were extra-Biblical accounts, not written by the writers of the NT books, but by some "nobody" who happened to be one of the 500 witnesses? (Or are there? I'm no historian) If we compare the corroboration between two NT accounts, vs. between one NT account and one extra-Biblical account, wouldn't the latter be stronger evidence? Well, I think it's important to remember that ‘the Bible’ isn't one thing. Those accounts, the Gospels, the written accounts of the early history of the church and the epistles of the various apostles were apparently written separately at different times and in different places by significantly different people. They weren't gathered together until later, and the cohesiveness of the accounts speaks to the veracity of the events. And the writers of some of those accounts explicitly detail how they came to put those accounts together; Luke drew on eyewitness testimony and by the book of Acts he was writing as a first person narrator. And as has been pointed out earlier, the epistles of Paul, which are the earliest documents, confirm the ‘players’ involved and the events of the Gospels. So there is significant internal consistency between the various accounts on the essentials, and the fact that their differences on certain details is evidence that the accounts weren’t simply copied and coordinated – one would expect such differences if their were indeed multiple viewpoints of the events. quote: Wouldn't the case be stronger if he had never met Luke? Well, no, not necessarily; Luke chronicled histories, and only spends significant time with Paul quite a bit later – and the fact that this becomes a first person narrative seems to indicate he was writing well before he traveled with Paul. quote: Again, not to discount the accounts entirely, but wouldn't an account from a "nobody"--an insignificant other--be a stronger corroboration? There are some parallels here to early Mormon history--including martyrdom. First off, no Mormon other than Joseph Smith claimed to have witnessed the miraculous events that are said to have precipitated the writing of the Book of Mormon, so there were not multiple eyewitnesses. Joseph Smith was the only writer of these accounts, which he himself did not witness, but claimed had been revealed to him by an angel. And he didn’t exactly die a martyr’s death being called to recant his testimony; he died in a shootout with angry townspeople. And it’s important to remember the apostles, and the witnesses to Christ’s resurrection were ‘nobodies’. Indeed, the fact that the accounts detail the testimony of female disciples is notable – ancient Jews didn’t consider women reliable witnesses, and so for them to be included tells us the writers weren’t simply trying to ‘prove a case’, which would have only included those witnesses which were considered reliable, but were taking pains to be accurate. Indeed, Acts points out the amazement of the religious leaders that the 'nobodies' were somehow able to articulate forcefully and consistently a case for the reality of the risen Christ.

abraxas -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 1:07:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, I think it's important to remember that ‘the Bible’ isn't one thing. Those accounts, the Gospels, the written accounts of the early history of the church and the epistles of the various apostles were apparently written separately at different times and in different places by significantly different people. They were significantly different in some ways, but weren't they all part of Jesus' earliest group of recruits? They were significant in that way. quote: They weren't gathered together until later, and the cohesiveness of the accounts speaks to the veracity of the events. And the writers of some of those accounts explicitly detail how they came to put those accounts together; Luke drew on eyewitness testimony and by the book of Acts he was writing as a first person narrator. And as has been pointed out earlier, the epistles of Paul, which are the earliest documents, confirm the ‘players’ involved and the events of the Gospels. I think I see what you are saying. Paul wrote about things that happened before his own experience, and before they were written by those who documented them. Is that right? quote: So there is significant internal consistency between the various accounts on the essentials, and the fact that their differences on certain details is evidence that the accounts weren’t simply copied and coordinated – one would expect such differences if their were indeed multiple viewpoints of the events. This could go both ways. Discrepancies in different witnesses' accounts can also be a mark against them, as say in a court of law. I suppose this would depend on the nature of the discrepancy. quote: Well, no, not necessarily; Luke chronicled histories, and only spends significant time with Paul quite a bit later – and the fact that this becomes a first person narrative seems to indicate he was writing well before he traveled with Paul. But before Paul wrote his epistles? How can we be sure Paul wasn't influenced by Luke? quote: abraxas: Again, not to discount the accounts entirely, but wouldn't an account from a "nobody"--an insignificant other--be a stronger corroboration? There are some parallels here to early Mormon history--including martyrdom. quote: First off, no Mormon other than Joseph Smith claimed to have witnessed the miraculous events that are said to have precipitated the writing of the Book of Mormon, so there were not multiple eyewitnesses. Joseph Smith was the only writer of these accounts, which he himself did not witness, but claimed had been revealed to him by an angel. And he didn’t exactly die a martyr’s death being called to recant his testimony; he died in a shootout with angry townspeople. I'm certainly not out to defend the Mormon story. But Smith was not the only one to record allegedly miraculous accounts. Oliver Cowdery claims to have been visited by an angel, along with Smith, and given priesthood authority by that angel. Also, Smith's martyrdom is debatable. He's quoted prior to his arrest as knowing that he was being led to his death. He was in prison when he and his brother were killed by a mob. quote: And it’s important to remember the apostles, and the witnesses to Christ’s resurrection were ‘nobodies’. I can't consider the apostles 'nobodies'. The 500 witnesses in Acts I can consider nobodies, but do we have primary sources from any of them, or only descriptions of them through Luke or other apostles? The witnesses to Christ's resurrection, as well, were not nobodies, but were intimately connected with Jesus. That they were woman, as you point out, is a fair point. Yet how does the book of Ruth affect that idea? quote: Indeed, Acts points out the amazement of the religious leaders that the 'nobodies' were somehow able to articulate forcefully and consistently a case for the reality of the risen Christ. Can you expand on this? Really, I'm not out to 'disprove' the whole thing--but I think that personal experience, as you referred to earlier, constitutes a significant portion of the evidence, and so it just seems to me to be ultimately a very personal form of evidence--granted a very powerful one. The whole thing leaves me agnostic, but it's less history and more doctrine that keeps me at a distance. Earlier you said that unwillingness to accept this evidence is a reflection of a person's desires. What desires are you thinking of?

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 3:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I think you hit the issue over its head here. Between the historical evidence and the religious experience is the fulcrum of the entire Christian enterprise. The problem is that the accuracy of the historical evidence is proclaimed, not only to record a unique occurrence, or the accuracy of an (many) eyewitnesses; it's that disbelief in everything believable becomes the criterion for accepting the suspension of the believable, which most people accept doesn't include God anywhere in the picture. Most people, myself included, see in the documents an admixture of myth, accurate historical reporting, and narrative. And the truth or falsity of the claims these documents make, similarly, doesn't bear upon metaphysical considerations of God (by and large, and in a very general sense). But your argument essentially relies upon "taking the word of" people experiencing what they consider to be non-experiential, and so claims of accuracy, of intertextual consistency, or Christianity's "affect," don't bear upon the claim that Christ rose from the dead. Well, I disagree that this is all I am doing; as a matter of fact, I find incredible consistency between 'the word of' certain people, historical impacts, our understanding of nature, the nature of humans, and my own personal experiences - so that combination of evidence, which really is a sampling of every sort of evidence, and the consistency between them is what I base the reasonableness of my belief in Christ on. One may not find such things sufficient, but no one can say there is no warrant for my belief. Exactly. That's not all you're doing, but it places you on one half of the theological-philosophical fence. Or however you want to say it. Your neighbors will read the sentence "Christ took a walk, went up a mountain, got crucified, and then rose from the dead," as "Christ took a walk, went up a mountain, got crucified, and then xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx." Non-theists oftentimes have a hard time dealing with unique events of this scale, whether or not the history is in place, rank and file, as ordered as the Red Army. So to summarize: I'm glad we're in agreement. [;)]

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 4:01:05 PM)
quote: Exactly. That's not all you're doing, but it places you on one half of the theological-philosophical fence. Or however you want to say it. Your neighbors will read the sentence "Christ took a walk, went up a mountain, got crucified, and then rose from the dead," as "Christ took a walk, went up a mountain, got crucified, and then xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx." Non-theists oftentimes have a hard time dealing with unique events of this scale. So to summarize: I'm glad we're in agreement. Well, if you mean non-theists reject the miraculous, I would say that is a rather obvious point.

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 4:34:34 PM)
Not reject outright. They reject comprehension of it in the same way I don't understand what the words soul, spirit, heart, etc., mean outside theological contexts. Sure, I can give definitions and find comprehensible patterns of words, but they don't mean. So my point was: if RS rejects the unique, then wouldn't you be better off convincing him or her that the unique can occur in the way you've described it. It was more or less an unimportant comment. My main issue was with frankman, but I was trying to clarify the root of the issue. The point was: no matter how much historical evidence you pile up, until you have a Babel-sized tower of documents, the claim cannot be accepted because it's a closed claim. So until the claim is metaphysically, ontologically, or whatever-ogically, opened up, the only possible explanation is that the documents were forged, people hallucinated, anything but the unique. I'm reiterating the obvious to see how you'll respond.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 4:36:02 PM)
quote: They were significantly different in some ways, but weren't they all part of Jesus' earliest group of recruits? They were significant in that way. Paul and Luke weren’t at all part of his ‘recruits’. quote: I think I see what you are saying. Paul wrote about things that happened before his own experience, and before they were written by those who documented them. Is that right? Yep. quote: This could go both ways. Discrepancies in different witnesses' accounts can also be a mark against them, as say in a court of law. I suppose this would depend on the nature of the discrepancy. Sure – but if you are dealing with a very dramatic event, witnessed by a number of people, and they all agree on the major facts while differing on the details from their various perspectives, then it has the ring of truth. What you wouldn’t trust are widely varying depictions of the same event, or exact accounts repeated by different people. quote: But before Paul wrote his epistles? How can we be sure Paul wasn't influenced by Luke? They may very well have influenced each other, but Paul never wrote as Luke did an exhaustive Gospel narrative, and Luke never wrote about theological implications of Christ's teaching, so what they did write about didn’t seem to overlap much. quote: I'm certainly not out to defend the Mormon story. But Smith was not the only one to record allegedly miraculous accounts. Oliver Cowdery claims to have been visited by an angel, along with Smith, and given priesthood authority by that angel. Also, Smith's martyrdom is debatable. He's quoted prior to his arrest as knowing that he was being led to his death. He was in prison when he and his brother were killed by a mob. Actually, he later broke away from Smith and the Mormon Church for most of his life, which would seem odd if they were the product of the events Cowdery himself witnessed. And he was never martyred for his faith. quote: I can't consider the apostles 'nobodies'. The 500 witnesses in Acts I can consider nobodies, but do we have primary sources from any of them, or only descriptions of them through Luke or other apostles? The witnesses to Christ's resurrection, as well, were not nobodies, but were intimately connected with Jesus. That they were woman, as you point out, is a fair point. Yet how does the book of Ruth affect that idea? Well, you don’t consider them ‘nobodies’ because there are 2000 years of church history as well as most of Western civilization that is a product of their initial work. But they were just simple ordinary people at the beginning. quote: Can you expand on this? The book of Acts records this event: Acts 4:5 -13 On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead --by this name this man stands here before you in good health. "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. quote: Really, I'm not out to 'disprove' the whole thing--but I think that personal experience, as you referred to earlier, constitutes a significant portion of the evidence, and so it just seems to me to be ultimately a very personal form of evidence--granted a very powerful one. Well, I don’t deny personal experience plays a large part in a Christian’s belief, but I don’t think that is unexpected, because Christians don’t believe so much in a set of facts as they do a living person; and having a relationship with a person is primarily, well, personal. [:)] quote: The whole thing leaves me agnostic, but it's less history and more doctrine that keeps me at a distance. Earlier you said that unwillingness to accept this evidence is a reflection of a person's desires. What desires are you thinking of? Well, Pascal claimed, and I tend to agree, that disbelief, and skepticism ultimately had to do more with desire than intellect, because intellectually there is no reason not to want to live as Christ suggests; but our passions (selfish desires) prevent us from doing so – and so we defend our desires by expressing disbelief and clinging to skepticism. I of course can’t read another man’s heart, but I know that was certainly in my heart as an agnostic and skeptic.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 4:37:03 PM)
quote: Not reject outright. They reject comprehension of it in the same way I don't understand what the words soul, spirit, heart, etc., mean outside theological contexts. Sure, I can give definitions and find comprehensible patterns of words, but they don't mean. So my point was: if RS rejects the unique, then wouldn't you be better off convincing him or her that the unique can occur in the way you've described it. I don't think the two notions need to be mutually exclusive.

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 4:46:56 PM)
Exactly. Like protocol phrases, meaning is embedded in use. But when one controls the mechanisms of truth-production in sentences, which also means eliminating words without relatively determinate reference, then you've closed off the possibility of discussing metaphysics as ontologically real. Which is the problem. One you've admitted that historical evidence determines the truth-value of all assertions about Jesus' life, meaning all assertions not verified by historical evidence are undecided but probably-true or probably-false, then you've closed off the ability to discuss assertions about God's interactions with reality, since these assertions aren't verifiable.

Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 5:00:33 PM)
quote: Exactly. Like protocol phrases, meaning is embedded in use. But when one controls the mechanisms of truth-production in sentences, which also means eliminating words without relatively determinate reference, then you've closed off the possibility of discussing metaphysics as ontologically real. Which is the problem. One you've admitted that historical evidence determines the truth-value of all assertions about Jesus' life, meaning all assertions not verified by historical evidence are undecided but probably-true or probably-false, then you've closed off the ability to discuss assertions about God's interactions with reality, since these assertions aren't verifiable. When it comes down to it, I am more concerned about consistency between various means of ascertaining truth, as well as the beneficial effects of such ascertained truths on a life lived, than I am assigning them a particular order of merit.

hammurabi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/14/2008 5:05:50 PM)
Which makes you particularly level leaded. Although I don't ever remember hearing of Jhud the pragmatist! [:D] Anyways, carry on...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI