Thread: Christ's Resurrection Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026029
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Of course this is something of a hoary chestnut in the Christian world, but I don’t think I’ve seen it discussed as such on the Ship during my time aboard, though it’s been referred to often.
I am not so much interested in its theological significance, or alleged “proofs” (eg change in disciples; failure of authorities to produce body) as in its place in the apologetic armoury, where it is often regarded as the big gun.
How valid is it as evidence of Christ’s credentials in particular and for the faith in general?
Is it of less significance today than it was in an earlier more rationalistic and modernist culture?
How do the Ship’s atheists deal with it?
That is not a taunt or a challenge; I am really interested in how non-believers regard the claims for its historicity.
Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Secondly, I find it difficult to understand why the risen Christ revealed himself to such a small number of witnesses.
Why did he not appear publicly, even globally, if he wanted humanity to believe in him?
The extraordinary appearance to “five hundred at once” reported by Paul is, remarkably, absent from the Gospels, Acts or any other source.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Quite a wide ranging OP. I wonder how it will go. My thoughts on your more specific questions are:
1. About liberals believing it. Seems natural to me on the basis that it is far more central to the Faith than many other doctrines and accounts of things that people find it hard to accept. Liberal is, of course, a variable terms, but those to whom it obviously applies do not typically insist on the bodily resurrection and empty tomb.
2. As to why he didn't appear to all? I am not at all convinced that it would be possible. Hugh Montefiore became a christian because Christ appeared to him. Could Christ appear to Richard Dawkins? Wouldn't it be taken as a lucid dream? Or some hallucination? He'd more or less have to "do a turn" to prove who he was. And that's a bit like jumping off the Temple as a stunt.
I think you'll never get anyone to believe it who isn't pre-disposed. The evidence is just not strong enough, and whilst I think it is decent, there's a lot of issues. The book by Pinchas Lapide (the rarity of an orthodox Jew believing in it without feeling the need to convert) is interesting. He does believe it but by no means accepts all the NT accounts.
That's about where I am, but I could not honestly say my belief is strong in the bodily resurrection. Something happened - that I do believe. But I'm less confident in the NT accounts. And that's simply because the old adage that unusual events need more that usual proof, is not a bad rule. According to some, many have been resurrected today, in places far away, and I don't believe a word of that.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
For me, the resurrection is of vital importance. Without it, the cross means death rather than life.
One of the keys to understanding is to recognise that significant physical events represent spiritual events. Significant must mean extraordinary. It must be apparent that God is at work. If people can reproduce an event, they will not see God in it.
I was not predisposed to believe in God, in Jesus, in the miracles, in the resurrection or the cross. While I allowed for the possibility of God's existence, I thought the stories about Jesus were probably not true, or were embellishments of lesser events. As it happened, it was the living Christ who led me to God, and the continuing spiritual experience is, over time and with reflection and prayer, bringing me around. Does that mean I'm now predisposed to believe? I don't think so. My sceptical head still challenges.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Quite a wide ranging OP.
Yes, it is a bit rambling I'm afraid.
What it boils down to is that I've been brooding a lot recently about the facts that on the one hand most Christians have not only believed it, but believed that there is good evidence for believing it, yet on the other hand it is obviously very easily ignored or dismissed by non-believers.
Is this because they are afraid to face up to the arguments in its favour, or are we Christians kidding ourselves about those arguments' cogency?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
It's not surprising where Christianity is not 'sold' on its promise of eternal life that the resurrection is ignored by non-believers as well as some believers, particularly as so many seem to think that everyone floats up into the air to a wonderful experience when they die in any case.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
In the OP Kaplan Corday asked regarding the resurrection:
quote:
[B]Is it of less significance today than it was in an earlier more rationalistic and modernist culture?[/B
]
I believe that death has been the origin of most religions and is still "the unknown country from which no traveler returns". The burial artifacts from primitive civilizations testify to this sort of early religious belief.
John's Gospel written at the end of the first century tried to emphasize the resurrection as a rallying point for new Christians.
Will the "modernist culture" be able to discard the afterlife as not necessary? If not, then the dream will live on.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I think it is because the arguments boil down to "the various other options proposed (e.g. lying / mistaken / misunderstood / misreported / hallucinating disciples, theft / disposal / natural revival of body) seem somewhat unlikely / unsatisfying".
While I agree that this is indeed the case, it is only going to convince someone who is already prepared to countenance the possibility of a miraculous occurrence - otherwise this explanation seems even more unlikely.
And I also think they would have to already "buy in" to the gospel sufficiently that resurrection made sense as an option. Even if you believe that miracles happen every day, you (probably) wouldn't say: "Well, I can't imagine what has happened to my car keys. None of the non-supernatural scenarios I have come up with make any sense. Therefore they must have been miraculously disintegrated by God."
In short, I think the evidence is only convincing to someone who is already close to believing.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think it is because the arguments boil down to "the various other options proposed (e.g. lying / mistaken / misunderstood / misreported / hallucinating disciples, theft / disposal / natural revival of body) seem somewhat unlikely / unsatisfying".
While I agree that this is indeed the case, it is only going to convince someone who is already prepared to countenance the possibility of a miraculous occurrence - otherwise this explanation seems even more unlikely.
And I also think they would have to already "buy in" to the gospel sufficiently that resurrection made sense as an option. Even if you believe that miracles happen every day, you (probably) wouldn't say: "Well, I can't imagine what has happened to my car keys. None of the non-supernatural scenarios I have come up with make any sense. Therefore they must have been miraculously disintegrated by God."
In short, I think the evidence is only convincing to someone who is already close to believing.
As far as apologetics goes this sounds about right to me. I don't think many atheists would find the evidence put forward to be especially compelling and would probably cite something like the car key analogy in order to produce a reductio ad absurdum argument.
They'd proboably also suggest that an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence which is lacking here and then make comparisons with other miraculous claims made by competing religions asking why we don't accept those.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
The interesting thing about the resurrection stories is that as soon as Jesus is recognised, he disappears (eg, the supper at Emmaus) which suggests that the meaning of the resurrection is the recognition of Christ-like qualities in other people. The problem for the early Christians was that they couldn't go on indefinitely claiming the recognition of Christ in other people as a physical resurrection, so they had to find a way to get rid of the body. The story of the ascension very neatly brings the resurrection appearances to an end. From then on, the church has been "the body of Christ". So, yes, Christ lives, but not in the way a literal reading of the Easter gospels suggests.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I also identify quite strongly with Kaplan C about the "why didn't Jesus appear publically / globally" thing. (And while we're at it, why not add "permanently, visibly" too?) It makes part of me want to shout: "These scientific materialists are honest guys, you know. Can't you give them a break? If you could just do an incontrovertible miracle thing, repeatable as required, they'd be fine with the whole thing... is that too much to ask?"
But perhaps the sort of faith that would generate isn't the sort of faith that God is looking for... I guess you might believe that the Resurrection had happened, and yet it might not affect your life at all...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
How do the Ship’s atheists deal with it?
That is not a taunt or a challenge; I am really interested in how non-believers regard the claims for its historicity.
Thank you for including unbelievers in this. Largely I'd go with Gwalchmai on this (welcome to the Ship by the way).
I am not an expert on the historicity of the events. My guess (and that's all it is) is that, as the church began to increase in size the recollections of those who knew Jesus or the facts of his death were passed from one person or community to another and began to be retrospectively modified. If you hear a story about someone you believe to be in some way wonderful you tend to read more into the story than the facts.
When someone dies it is common for those who loved them to feel as though they are still there, to feel they can talk to them, to have vivid dreams in which they are alive, sometimes to see them. In time this could become that he had been there in the body and so on.
From a naturalistic point of view what seems more evident to me is the heroic story: a young rabbi, a prophet, speaks truth not just to power but to everyone. The law is nothing unless you are prepared to give, if necessary everything, for God or for your neighbour. And everyone is your neighbour.
He is murdered and only then do his followers really get what he was talking about. Fear dies in them or Jesus is resurrected, as you will. A small, once demoralised, bunch of ordinary men and women decide that they will continue in the way he has taught them, include those who are unimportant, unheard and unloved. From it comes a faith that takes on the Roman Empire. That is an amazing piece of history.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
From the Biblical account, those post-Resurrection appearances really helped the disciples change though. From the stories, the disciples had scattered and gone back to their earlier careers or families. Following the post-resurrection appearances, in that period between the Crucifixion, Ascension and Pentecost, the disciples had regathered in Jerusalem. And as followers of a leader who had been executed by the law that behaviour is a bit strange without some additional impetus.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I also identify quite strongly with Kaplan C about the "why didn't Jesus appear publically / globally" thing.
We do not know how many people saw the Resurrected Lord, but appearing to random strangers all over the country/world would be a bit pointless; they would not have recognised him. Even those who knew him intimately took some time to realise who he was.
It therefore makes sense for him to appear to the people who would know who he was, and to convince them first of all. Once they are well and truly convinced, there is no need to appear to everyone else.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It makes part of me want to shout: "These scientific materialists are honest guys, you know. Can't you give them a break? If you could just do an incontrovertible miracle thing, repeatable as required, they'd be fine with the whole thing... is that too much to ask?"
I sympathise with the thought, but surely an incontrovertible miracle, repeatable as required, would no longer qualify as a miracle. Miracles by definition have to be outside scientific replication or explanation.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From the Biblical account, those post-Resurrection appearances really helped the disciples change though. From the stories, the disciples had scattered and gone back to their earlier careers or families. Following the post-resurrection appearances, in that period between the Crucifixion, Ascension and Pentecost, the disciples had regathered in Jerusalem. And as followers of a leader who had been executed by the law that behaviour is a bit strange without some additional impetus.
We don't know when the Gospels were written, if Mark was written around 70CE how much would it have relied on eye witness accounts, how much on stories which had been passed down, orally perhaps, for around 40 years. Also it would be dangerous to assume that the author's views on accuracy, the historical record and so on would have been like ours.
Clearly whatever happened to the disciples changed them. Of course, just as the Gospels come from much later, so the the lists of the disciples. Of the 70, how many came back to Jerusalem? I agree they showed great courage and surely most of that was from the example of Jesus himself. Is it not possible some of the disciples realized the full power of what Jesus had said and, to use a cliche, did what Jesus would have done?
We both lack evidence and must both accept what works for us. I'm only saying there could be other explanations, not that yours is wrong.
There are always people who do remarkable things. I just found this about a soldier breaking into Auschwitz which seems amazing but I have read other similar stories. In the rescue of the Danish Jews many Danes were prepared to risk death in order to do what they knew was right. And so on.
From these we build our myths, that is, to me, the narratives which summarise what we live for and by. The 'facts' may not always be quite right but the spirit is or the stories fail to become myths. And the myth is that given the right cause we can, sometimes get things right and do wonderful things. Of course you might say it was the Holy Spirit and I would say it was the best of the human spirit. Both of us would probably agree we mostly fall short. But I still find much more to admire in people that to despise.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Yes, it is a bit rambling I'm afraid.
No worries KC . Any attempt to really nail the Resurrection invariably tends towards a ramble whether it be in a sermon or whatever.
OK maybe a Bible literalist doesn't have any struggles whatsoever with the Resurrection . Anyone with an inquiring mind however , (that being the characteristic most human minds ), will.
Like it or not the Resurrection is at at the centre of the Christianity , without it there would be no Christianity . I mostly concur with what Rapture Eye said in his first post.
My own thoughts on the origin of the Easter Sunday accounts are that Mary Magdalene had some sort of transcendental experience and gradually, over time, the disciples succumbed to the same, (and indeed, laterly, Saul also) . But yeah, that's my ramble on it.
'More than words can express' as the Psalmist puts it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The interesting thing about the resurrection stories is that as soon as Jesus is recognised, he disappears (eg, the supper at Emmaus) which suggests that the meaning of the resurrection is the recognition of Christ-like qualities in other people.
I don't see any connection between these two things (disappearing, meaning of resurrection=looking for Christ like qualities in others). Can you explain how you move logically from the former to the latter?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
mousethief, I suspect that the logic comes from trying to explain the post-resurrection appearances of Christ.
There is a fairly well known phenomenon of grief when the grieving person sees the face and form of the person they have lost everywhere for a while. So under this explanation it would make sense that the disciples saw Jesus in this way: the glimpses of his face and form in crowds and in other people. But when they looked closer, they realised that it wasn't really Jesus they had seen. Which is why the emphasis on the disappearance of those visions.
If that was what was happening, why did frightened followers of a leader who had been put to death under the rule of law in that occupied country, who had scattered to their old homes and professions, regather in the capital city, where they were in danger as the followers of Jesus? According to a the accounts it was only a few weeks later. If the disciples really believed they had met Jesus their confidence would have been bolstered and regathering makes sense.
Having experienced them, those fleeting appearances of someone you have lost don't build confidence. They make you feel as if you're going mad.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a fairly well known phenomenon of grief when the grieving person sees the face and form of the person they have lost everywhere for a while...
...Having experienced them, those fleeting appearances of someone you have lost don't build confidence. They make you feel as if you're going mad.
Well yes, and "going mad" was one of the things I thought was happening to me when experiencing some kind of religious surge aged 41.
I think quite a few different things were at work to get the Resurrection account off the ground. Dreams, for example were given a whole lot more importance back then than they are now.
Maybe the "500" acount was something to do with Paul trying to get Rome on board . Does this particular number have any significance in Roman history I wonder ?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
An irresistible OP for an atheist!! But I'll read through carefully before responding.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a fairly well known phenomenon of grief when the grieving person sees the face and form of the person they have lost everywhere for a while. So under this explanation it would make sense that the disciples saw Jesus in this way: the glimpses of his face and form in crowds and in other people. But when they looked closer, they realised that it wasn't really Jesus they had seen. Which is why the emphasis on the disappearance of those visions.
This is a common enough experience to be understood even in the first century, but it is not what the Gospels describe.
We think we are glimpsing our loved one, but when we look closer it turns out we are wrong. The disciples, including Mary Magdalen, think they are addressing a stranger, but when they look closer, when they notice his gestures or hear his voice, it turns out to be the Lord.
As with so much involving the Lord, the experience is turned around.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Yes, ACR. An interesting point. Part of the power of these stories is that the followers didn't expect to see him at all. Far from brain-washing themselves into seeing him all over the place, they didn't recognise him for a long time when he did appear.
A recent book about the shroud has posited that it really does carry the image of Christ, and that this is what the resurrection appearances represent--showings of the shroud that made people think they were seeing him. I don't buy this--the stories (eg that fish breakfast on the shore, the words to Doubting Thomas) --are so particular, so detailed, so human.
But. Of course it is a preposterous idea, given everything we know about human life and death.
And yet. No other explanation seems quite sufficient either to explain the profound change the apostles and disciples underwent, the courage unto death they suddenly received, the absolute conviction that he was still alive and with them, their acceptance of the terrible, humiliating shameful death on the cross because it
wasn't the end of the story.
No-one can prove it, either way. Of course atheists think it is ridiculous to believe it for one minute.
But the stories and the way they are told, combined with the extraordinary beginnings of the Christian church, make me feel sure something happened; something strange, inexplicable, enormous.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But. Of course it is a preposterous idea, given everything we know about human life and death.
And yet. No other explanation seems quite sufficient either to explain the profound change the apostles and disciples underwent, the courage unto death they suddenly received, the absolute conviction that he was still alive and with them, their acceptance of the terrible, humiliating shameful death on the cross because it
wasn't the end of the story.
No-one can prove it, either way. Of course atheists think it is ridiculous to believe it for one minute.
But the stories and the way they are told, combined with the extraordinary beginnings of the Christian church, make me feel sure something happened; something strange, inexplicable, enormous.
I am not sure atheists would think it ridiculous; why should they? There is not much point having an ineffectual deity. Given that we believe in God at all, why would we want one who is unwilling to be preposterous?
What would be ridiculous, imo, would be to believe in an Almighty Deity, and then constrain the limits of his behaviour to what seems appropriate or reasonable.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Well, you're right, ACR. I shouldn't speak for what atheists think (and we'll probably hear from some soon enough!).
And yes, a good point...why constrain the Deity?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I definitely go along with Turquoise Tastic' here. This is a bit longer than I intended! I have though found it interesting to write, as usual.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
How valid is it as evidence of Christ’s credentials in particular and for the faith in general?
It certainly seems to be held as a proven fact by Anglican Church leaders when I've heard them speak (on radio for instance) although I should think there must be many Christians who prefer not to face the obvious conflict between this and the science and nature information they see and hear on the media and can access easily on the internet.
. As for it being evidence of Christ's credentials, whatever people perceive those to be, I'd say they come only from the thoughts and ideas of those who wished to give their new group strength against competing sects;and this was better expressed byanother post ..... up thread.
quote:
Is it of less significance today than it was in an earlier more rationalistic and modernist culture?
An 'earlier' such culture? Hmm. Do you think we are less rational today? Maybe the world is so in many ways!
I think those who believe the resurrection have a tendency to hang more tightly on to it as a belief, perhaps defying the knowledge that is replacing such myths with more reliable answers. They see the clever illusions performed by magicians and know for certain these are not miracles, but perhaps avoid connecting the 2,000 year old myth with today's science? quote:
How do the Ship’s atheists deal with it?
By seeing it as it must have been! Even as a believer in God, I knew that the stories of miracles were teaching tools to show how to know right from wrong etc, not to be believed as absolutely true. To believe that such an event could actually take place is verymuch too unbelievable for me.
quote:
That is not a taunt or a challenge; I am really interested in how non-believers regard the claims for its historicity.
I think the claims for historicity are easier to understand, since we know the background of how people lived over the centuries and are constantly finding out and verifying by
checking and double-checking to ascertain facts and fill in gaps.
I wonder whether the question of how many people Christ appeared to is a useful one? In the same way that atheists believe in one less god than believers, they believe in one less resurrection than Christians!
quote:
Secondly, I find it difficult to understand why the risen Christ revealed himself to such a small number of witnesses.
I wouldn't like to have any such witness to influence a court judgement if I was involved - far too unreliable, I think!
[
[ 25. August 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
In topics like this, I read phrases such as, 'Mary Magdalen went to...', 'the disciple said...' as if these words are without any doubt true, but there's a very large measure of faith required to accept this. I know people don't go around qualifying these statements every time, assuming the lack of certainty is taken for granted, , but perhaps it needs a brief mention here.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In topics like this, I read phrases such as, 'Mary Magdalen went to...', 'the disciple said...' as if these words are without any doubt true, but there's a very large measure of faith required to accept this. I know people don't go around qualifying these statements every time, assuming the lack of certainty is taken for granted, , but perhaps it needs a brief mention here.
Well, of course I, for one, am taking the lack of certainty for granted when I speak of the gospel stories and so on. And I don't feel it needs to be mentioned every time.
We all know they can't be proved as 100% true, especially in details as to what exactly was said.
But, and it is a big but, there is so much in those stories that is unique, powerful, extraordinary, has a special flavour one doesn't see (AFAIK) in other writings from the period, etc etc....and so much that, if one were trying to invent an account to praise a teacher and his followers, one wouldn't put in!
On balance, I feel the gospel accounts are in the main "true" in that they tell the story of a man who really lived, who had the dramatic effect on people he is said to have, who was believed to have a special link to God (to be defined and re-defined in later centuries!) and who did heal, preach as reported, tell the parables as reported etc.
While accepting that there have been mistakes, garbled versions, speech inaccurately reported (or even invented, as was common even by historians like tacitus, who "reported" one of Boadica's speeches to rally her followers "word for word"--and all sorts of human error that has crept in.
And of course historians accept, as is clear from other historical evidence--Josephus, Tacitus, etc etc--that Jesus did indeed live, and die crucified.
For the purposes of this discussion specifically about the resurrection, won't we have to agree that we're taking the biblical accounts as basically true in their essence? But the point in question is the reality of jesus's physical resurrection. (And perhaps also other miracles, like the raising of Lazarus etc, though they would be a separate discussion...?)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
IMHO, the details aren't that important.
Now, people might object to say that that's an easy way to explain away the contradictions in the Resurrection stories in the Gospels. And the details are important when we Christians tell the story over and over again to future generations.
But on the meaning of the event itself, whether or not this or that detail historically happened is incidental.
Faith in the resurrection is difficult not because scientifically, the evidence demonstrates that people don't survive death. It is difficult because when we think of people dying in Syria or Egypt, or on our streets, homeless and alone, it is easy to believe that none of it all matters.
The Christian faith stands on the notion that life matters and there is triumph and celebration that comes after suffering. The eschatological hope of the Church is that the cosmos will itself enjoy the very life of God. The proof of this hope is that we believe that one person, this Jesus Christ, now enjoys this risen life, fully vindicated and more alive than we are.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Cara
Thank you for your, as always, interesting and thoughtful reply;. quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It is difficult because when we think of people dying in Syria or Egypt, or on our streets, homeless and alone, it is easy to believe that none of it all matters.
Although many of us feel helpless about our inability to do anything useful for the peopl suffering in terrible conflicts, I think I am more optimistic than your statement souns. I'd say that most people genuinely feel that these lives do matter.
[
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
SusanDoris,
The Christian hope is more than simply that people's lives matter. If Christianity is to be regarded as foolish, let it be regarded as foolish for this reason: that at the core of our faith is the vision of humanity becoming fully divine, fully glorified in the Beatific Vision. This is what the Incarnation means ultimately, that God participated fully in human existence, thereby raising it to divine stature.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
I think those who believe the resurrection have a tendency to hang more tightly on to it as a belief, perhaps defying the knowledge that is replacing such myths with more reliable answers.
And which 'knowledge' would that be then?
The only 'knowledge' that contradicts the resurrection is not actually 'knowledge' at all, but just a highly speculative view of reality called philosophical naturalism, which states that there can be no dimensions of reality operating outside or above the reality governed by the recognised laws of physics and chemistry. Obviously this 'knowledge' has not kept pace with science, with its investigation of the quantum world, its acknowledgment that the recognised laws of physics and chemistry are not 'absolute' (hence Stephen Hawking's admission that the event of the Big Bang did not operate according to those laws) and the serious speculation about parallel universes, some of which could operate according to different laws of physics. In other words, scientific progress is wide open to the possibility of other dimensions of reality above what we term 'nature'.
Therefore the idea of supernature interacting with nature is not at all contrary to science. The truth is that the traditional materialistic position is now rather "old hat".
[ 25. August 2013, 22:13: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I would make two points:
Firstly it wasn't just the one or two that Jesus appeared to; he appeared to 500 at once.
Secondly, why not to the whole world? It's a question I sometimes ask - why did Jesus not march back up the Via Dolorosa and present himself to Pilate and the High Priest?
And my answer is twofold:
- what? rush from the open tomb and suddenly appear in the temple? Just like the Devil told him to do in the temptations?
- why would they believe anyway? It's the 'pearls before swine' thing. Why would a bunch of priests believe especially when you take THIS into account?
We are asked to believe and that means to make it a personal matter of the heart. An indisputable resurrection-event would just become another historical occurrence that you can take or leave. It could not be an internalised experience. Therefore it's one of those things that are believed as a certainty though we don't see it.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The only 'knowledge' that contradicts the resurrection is not actually 'knowledge' at all, but just a highly speculative view of reality called philosophical naturalism
You chooses your highly speculative view and you takes your choice. Religion offers one choice, science another, and you can even have both, or knit your own.
Can you offer something that isn't highly speculative?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je
You chooses your highly speculative view and you takes your choice. Religion offers one choice, science another, and you can even have both, or knit your own.
Can you offer something that isn't highly speculative?
Various aspects of reality, such as thought, consciousness, morality, free will, matter and, yes, the ability of the human organism to engage with truth (because even if we assert that all is doubtful, we can only do so if we also believe that that proposition is actually objectively true).
On the basis of these elements we make logical inferences to explain the nature of reality as a whole. These inferences support a view of reality which makes the resurrection of Christ possible. 'Religion' (whatever that is) may be speculative; God is not.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
because even if we assert that all is doubtful, we can only do so if we also believe that that proposition is actually objectively true.
I do think everything is doubtful but someone may come up with an indubitable assertion, in which case I'm wrong.
On the basis of these elements we make logical inferences to explain the nature of reality as a whole. These inferences support a view of reality which makes the resurrection of Christ possible.
I'm impressed that you can explain the nature of reality as a whole. But I never doubted that the resurrection was possible (though SusanDoris may do so). But the point you have made above does seem speculative. You claim X, other people claim not X. None of us have evidence (logical, empirical or otherwise) which necessarily convinces everyone and no one has proved that either X or not X is self contradictory. Both options remain open to speculation.
This whole thread has been speculative and all beliefs are, as far as I know, speculative (but of course I could be wrong). Which is what makes life such fun.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
SusanDoris,
The Christian hope is more than simply that people's lives matter. If Christianity is to be regarded as foolish, let it be regarded as foolish for this reason: that at the core of our faith is the vision of humanity becoming fully divine, fully glorified in the Beatific Vision. This is what the Incarnation means ultimately, that God participated fully in human existence, thereby raising it to divine stature.
I'd like to give you a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
for the spirit of that. If the resurrection offers you a glimpse of your own eternal life, then we're on the same page. However, the reader would need to share your assumption of humankind's divine creation and subsequent fall, which obviously the Ship's atheists don't. This particular Ship's atheist supposes humankind's divine stature to be a given (as expressed in the Sanskrit greeting, namaste: 'I bow to the divine within you') and eternal life to be inevitable rather than aspirational . I know - a lot of atheists call for me to be burned as a heretic too! But I say if you start with that supposition, rather than hoping for it to be revealed to you as a fact, 'people's lives matter' is a much more profound maxim than you (A_B) appear to be giving it credit for. As a spur to harmonious attitude and action, it's much more to the point than 'God is what really matters and God made people so perhaps we should spare a thought for people as well'.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
'Religion' (whatever that is) may be speculative; God is not.
Your final statement there is, of course, something speculated by religion. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
More to the point, "people's lives matter" is a theological/philosophical claim. Insomuch as atheists affirm that, they are acting outside of a rigid, scientific and positivist mindset.
So in the end, no one is really all that rational, if rationality is defined as scientific positivism.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
^
"Insomuch as atheists affirm that, they are acting outside of a rigid, scientific and positivist mindset".
Yay for them ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. But atheism is a broad notchurch and its members are clearly not all the rabid Dawkinsians that they're often made out to be. I sense SusanDoris was posting with her Humanist hat on there, which is one avenue open to atheists.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
More to the point, "people's lives matter" is a theological/philosophical claim. Insomuch as atheists affirm that, they are acting outside of a rigid, scientific and positivist mindset.
So in the end, no one is really all that rational, if rationality is defined as scientific positivism.
William of Ockham and others of his period are sometimes considered positivists. If what can be known is defined as what is empirically testable, they simply put their faith in God and didn't ask for evidence. Positivism cuts both ways.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Of course this is something of a hoary chestnut in the Christian world, but I don’t think I’ve seen it discussed as such on the Ship during my time aboard, though it’s been referred to often.
I am not so much interested in its theological significance, or alleged “proofs” (eg change in disciples; failure of authorities to produce body) as in its place in the apologetic armoury, where it is often regarded as the big gun......
How do the Ship’s atheists deal with it?
The same way as I deal with Achilles’ heel, Robin Hood’s archery feats and New York’s sewers being full of man-eating crocodiles. Just because someone wrote it down doesn’t make it true. When the only basis for belief is “someone wrote it down” I have no problem doubting its veracity. If the gospel author can make up a census just to tie a preacher in with a prophecy which related to an earthly king and present it as compelling evidence for the preacher being god adding the preacher to a list of resurrected deities is hardly surprising.
The Roman Empire was a tough, competitive marketplace for religions, those following the paroxysms gripping the GOP can see how being more extreme in one’s beliefs is sometimes considered to be vital for survival.
Secondly, I find it difficult to understand why the risen Christ revealed himself to such a small number of witnesses.
Why did he not appear publicly, even globally, if he wanted humanity to believe in him?
As an atheist and as a cynical optimist – The reason god leaves the question of its existence in doubt has only two explanations.
One – its a rotten god who doesn’t give a proverbial about humanity and
Two – no god
... consider – if the doubt were resolved - if we knew that there was a god and had a clear understanding of what it wanted and what the future held there would be no option to pursue personal power, position, privilege etc. Hell would not be for unbelievers – there couldn’t be any – it would become the destination of those who failed to reach the god’s standards. Assuming that the god was righteous, loving, moral etc. - think of all the pain inflicted on human beings that would not occur if the perpetrators actually knew that hell was the consequence of their actions. Think of the ways humanity could flourish if it were certain that there was a real reward for charity. Think no priests who pretend piety and practice abuse, no pedlars of quack medicine/philosophy designed to enrich the conman at the expense of the gullible, no hatred for those unlike us because god made them as they are........
Of course that would require god giving up the demand for faith-based acceptance – a demand we only know of because we’re told he makes it by those with power, position and privilege – although, funnily enough, we have to accept their veracity by faith in their faith, in someone else’s faith, in s.....
The extraordinary appearance to “five hundred at once” reported by Paul is, remarkably, absent from the Gospels, Acts or any other source.
Paul was a salesman, maybe someone said they’d heard it from their aunt’s cousin who heard it from their maid who’d got it from a centurion on his way to a new posting – somewhere. Current christian preachers have revelations/are possessed by the Holy Ghost/see visions/exaggerate/ improve/embellish/quote selectively/make things up – just because you don’t doesn’t mean that Paul didn’t.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Faith is a subjective experience.
My faith in the Resurrection isn't just about the Church saying it so. It is about me, believing in my deepest of hearts that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. This heartfelt belief aligns with the Church's understanding and that is why I'm a Christian.
For those who don't have this belief, no amount of rational proof can convince a person of the reality of the Resurrection. Nor should it. The Resurrection is not a part of normal material reality. The moment someone is convinced of the Resurrection based on "evidence" is the moment the faith changes from a feeling of the heart to a dull, cerebral dogma.
Christians should at least be honest and say, "Yeah, we don't just believe it based on our brains, but on our heartfelt experience" instead of pretending that the faith is an all together rational program.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
As I've aged the miracles of the bible and of Jesus have seemed a lot less important than the way of life in This Christian Life. Perhaps it's the accumulation of hurts and sorrows, of deaths, of misfortunes, and the seeming absence of God within them all (in fact the almost malicious absence of God, even when tormented to the point of wishing to be dead, preferably struck dead).
Thus, I've thought that the focus on the miraculous events, of the resurrection and all the other worldly things attached to it are deflections of our consciousness toward that "something for me", the eternal life goal. So now I think I understand that living without clear understanding and expectation, but in the accustomed Christian way, accepting for brief periods of glimmers of certainty, and with ongoing doubts, what for some it seems abundantly clear and without doubts. Such is my lot. But then I also discuss lots of these things with "older adults" and a lot of them have also lost some certainty and the convincedness, and we all continue "as if" the resurrection and all the other stuff is true and we follow as best we can, but we never know, really, nor fully, anything certain.
Thus, I ask: Is faith more in the doing than believing?
(if I could type, and follow instructions about proofreading, and if that also helped me type, then I would not edit)
[ 27. August 2013, 02:34: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It is about me, believing in my deepest of hearts that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
Christians should at least be honest and say, "Yeah, we don't just believe it based on our brains, but on our heartfelt experience"
"You ask me how I know he lives,
He lives within my heart!"?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The moment someone is convinced of the Resurrection based on "evidence" is the moment the faith changes from a feeling of the heart to a dull, cerebral dogma.
I agree entirely. At that moment you become a scientist in the widest sense. And though science is vast and wonderful it does not tell you what you should value or how you should live. The scientific equivalent is the opposite, for example those scientists, esp 19/early 20th century who tried to turn Darwinism into a religion of 'progress'. An attempt to switch categories with disasterous consequences.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And which 'knowledge' would that be then?
The knowledge which, while never being able to provide the final 0.0..01%to make the vanishingly small probability of resurrections such as that of Christ likely to be possible, has, nevertheless, not been overturned or much dented by a belief in resurrection, no matter by how many this belief is held to be true.
And this is definitely a good thing, since if we agreed, I would so much miss reading such topicsas these and, I hope, learning more of others' views.
quote:
The only 'knowledge' that contradicts the resurrection is not actually 'knowledge' at all, but just a highly speculative view of reality called philosophical naturalism, ...
It has, ;however, stood us in good stead when it comes to our use of technology etc. quote:
which states that there can be no dimensions of reality operating outside or above the reality governed by the recognised laws of physics and chemistry.
Does it actually do that, EE? The conclusion is drawn of course, but is there such a statement from a source which is respected by top scientists etc?
quote:
The truth is that the traditional materialistic position is now rather "old hat".
Hmmm, well, I'm quite happy to rely on it for the next few weeks anyway!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I do think everything is doubtful but someone may come up with an indubitable assertion, in which case I'm wrong.
I'm impressed that you can explain the nature of reality as a whole. But I never doubted that the resurrection was possible (though SusanDoris may do so).
Yes, I do realise that there has to be that very small area of wriggle room, but at my age, I don't, personally, give it much thinking time - except here on ~SofF of course.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
We're with + Katherine when she says that she has no idea how it happened, but she most surely believes that it did.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
HughWillRidmee
Well said!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
The only 'knowledge' that contradicts the resurrection is not actually 'knowledge' at all, but just a highly speculative view of reality called philosophical naturalism, ...
It has, ;however, stood us in good stead when it comes to our use of technology etc.
I think you're mistaking philosophical naturalism for methodological naturalism.
I personally cannot see how the only way I can effectively use my computer is by ceasing to believe in God! That would be a gross category error.
Philosophical naturalism is not a necessary condition for practical science. You don't need to be an atheist in order to design and build a bridge, for example. In fact, it doesn't even confer an advantage.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
From Kaplan Corday:
Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From Kaplan Corday:
Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
That's just not true. The evangelical hymn book has many many songs and choruses about the resurrection!
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, I find it difficult to understand why the risen Christ revealed himself to such a small number of witnesses.
Why did he not appear publicly, even globally, if he wanted humanity to believe in him?
Perhaps it was because the kind of belief that is based solely on indisputable evidence is not the kind of belief he wants from us? Because the kind of belief he would rather have is the kind that says "I believe that the things you said are true and good and worth adopting as a guide to how I should try to live my life"? Because he wanted our focus to be on following his teachings more than on the accuracy of our faith?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From Kaplan Corday:
Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
That's just not true. The evangelical hymn book has many many songs and choruses about the resurrection!
Whilst this is true, my experience tallies with that of Gee D - whilst the resurrection and ascension are sung about (well, the resurrection anyway) and a pretty literal view of it is a significant Shibboleth, it didn't, again, IME, get a great deal of theological significance attached to it - and the ascension got even less. My wishy-washy liberal not a proper Christian theology actually attaches a lot of significance to both, even though I wouldn't sign on any dotted lines about the historic nature of either event.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
As one in the "hopes as much as believes" category, I'd consider it a very helpful move.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
As one in the "hopes as much as believes" category, I'd consider it a very helpful move.
ITSM - speaking as a once fairly successful salesman - that any god who wants people to believe in him but won't do anything to encourage those who can't is a bit of a numpty and definitely not going to be giving a thank-you speech on the rostrum at the annual god-of-the-year gala dinner and awards ceremony.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From Kaplan Corday:
Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
That's just not true. The evangelical hymn book has many many songs and choruses about the resurrection!
Whilst this is true, my experience tallies with that of Gee D - whilst the resurrection and ascension are sung about (well, the resurrection anyway) and a pretty literal view of it is a significant Shibboleth, it didn't, again, IME, get a great deal of theological significance attached to it - and the ascension got even less. My wishy-washy liberal not a proper Christian theology actually attaches a lot of significance to both, even though I wouldn't sign on any dotted lines about the historic nature of either event.
Well I'm not sure what kind of evangelical churches you're attending but I respect what you've found there.
In my view, especially within our kind of evangelicalism, is that the resurrection is paramount!
He lives! He lives!
Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks me with me
Along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives!
Salvation to impart;
you ask me how I know he lives?
He lives within my heart!
I thank you
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
As one in the "hopes as much as believes" category, I'd consider it a very helpful move.
I am also one who hopes and believes - but mostly doubts these days.
I wouldn't want Jesus to come again 'tho. That would remove any need for faith, it would also mean we'd have to stop thinking through this faith thing for ourselves.
Either that, or we'd just crucify him again anyway ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
ITSM - speaking as a once fairly successful salesman - that any god who wants people to believe in him but won't do anything to encourage those who can't is a bit of a numpty and definitely not going to be giving a thank-you speech on the rostrum at the annual god-of-the-year gala dinner and awards ceremony.
God has done more than enough to encourage and invite everyone, particularly through the life, death and resurrection of Christ. He'll be the one hosting the gala dinner when Christ does return and the world as we know it will end, with no more tears etc.
ISTM that unless God brings this forward so that there's no more evil or pain in the world now, some will say they can't believe.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
ITSM - speaking as a once fairly successful salesman - that any god who wants people to believe in him but won't do anything to encourage those who can't is a bit of a numpty and definitely not going to be giving a thank-you speech on the rostrum at the annual god-of-the-year gala dinner and awards ceremony.
God has done more than enough to encourage and invite everyone, particularly through the life, death and resurrection of Christ. He'll be the one hosting the gala dinner when Christ does return and the world as we know it will end, with no more tears etc.
ISTM that unless God brings this forward so that there's no more evil or pain in the world now, some will say they can't believe.
Your final sentence, ISTM, implies that you think that some of us choose not to believe (but could believe if we really, really tried), or that we really do believe but refuse to admit it. If you think thus, either, you are wrong. On the one hand I could no more kid myself that I believe in a deity (yours or anyone else’s) than kid myself that I’m twenty-one again and on the other - I used to believe, I know the difference.
If I could make myself believe (and I can’t) how would I choose which deity to follow? Your convictions are no more compelling than the beliefs of those who worship(ped) any of the thousands of deities that have been claimed, often with fervour equal to or greater than yours, by present and past generations.
And, come to think of it, why hasn’t God ended pain etc.. How would you feel if a loved one had a painful, debilitating and ultimately terminal disease and you were told that a simple cure existed - developed, tested, approved, produced and ready to go - but that the patent holder had decided not to release the cure for a couple of thousand years?
Perhaps numpty was a tad weak?
[ 29. August 2013, 23:40: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Yes, as someone who really wants to believe more strongly than I do, I find the implications of that last sentence rather insulting.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye: ISTM that unless God brings this forward so that there's no more evil or pain in the world now, some will say they can't believe.
What this says is that some people imply that they could not believe in God unless the world and the people in it were perfect now. It neither says nor implies that there are some people who could make themselves believe now if they really tried, nor that some pretend not to believe.
As to why God hasn't brought the world as we know it to an end yet: I can't know the mind and reasoning of God. There are Biblical implications that God is patient with us and is giving us the time we need to accept his good will. I have had loved ones die, and have another with a debilitating terminal illness. Death and disease are part and parcel of the imperfect world I live in as an imperfect human being. While I would like heaven now, I also appreciate the opportunity to try to share and grow what's good and alleviate or change what's not good while I can.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
If I could make myself believe (and I can’t) how would I choose which deity to follow. Your convictions are no more compelling than the beliefs of those who worship(ped) any of the thousands of deities that have been claimed, often with fervour equal to or greater than yours, by present and past generations.
Truth is, of course not based on strength of devotion. As for the idea that the claims of Christianity are no more compelling than those of other religions, I assume that you have analysed all these claims and assessed their logical coherence? Or is it a case of "if a claim involves belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension, then it must be inherently irrational"? If this assumption is not the reason for your argument, then I find it quite extraordinary that such a diverse set of claims should all be considered exactly equal in terms of their status of being uncompelling and implausible.
Here's an example: does love require a relationship in order to exist and have any kind of validity? Or can love exist in the absence of any kind of object of that love? Either one or other position is true. To say that both are equally implausible is absurd. And yet this idea separates the Christian (Trinitarian) and the Islamic ideas of God, with specific reference to His love. To dismiss both ideas on the basis that one is no more compelling than the other is really very strange thinking indeed!
Of course, I suppose you could say that these two ideas are equally implausible when referring to God, since the idea of 'God' is considered implausible. On the other hand, one of these ideas is more compelling than the other when limited to human interaction. If this is the case, then your objection to different theistic ideas is not an objection to those ideas at all, but to theism in general. This is rather devious, because you argue that if you did choose to believe in God, then you would be unable to decide which God to worship, because all theistic claims are not compelling. That context therefore rules out the argument that all theistic claims are implausible simply because they are theistic, because you are assuming a hypothetical scenario in which you decide to be a theist (and therefore, for the sake of argument, assume theism to be true).
If you have an objection to a particular theistic claim, then let's hear it and then discuss the concept on its own merits. If your objection to all theistic claims is simply because they are theistic, then the discussion is not really about particular theistic ideas at all, but about theism in general. Therefore the discussion becomes a philosophical and epistemological debate about naturalism vs. supernaturalism.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here's an example: does love require a relationship in order to exist and have any kind of validity? Or can love exist in the absence of any kind of object of that love? Either one or other position is true.
Clearly a person can 'love' in some sense Justice, for example, in the sense of being committed to it and wholly believing in it's ultimate importance. Justice is 'some' kind of object I guess since you can discuss and describe it (nominalists may disagree) as well as should examples which embody it.
If you love someone who is absent, does that count as a relationship? And if you discover, much later that the person has died did your relationship cease to be 'valid' as soon as the person died, though you still believed them alive?
I'm not clear of the difference between 'valid' and 'invalid' in loving relationships. Are you saying love has to be reciprocated to be valid or what? You may well be right in what you say, I just don't understand it.
[ 05. September 2013, 17:46: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0