The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An Easter re-think on miracles > Comments

An Easter re-think on miracles : Comments

By Phil Dye, published 15/4/2009

If Jesus is going to be questioned alongside Santa and the Easter Bunny, perhaps our religious leaders should take a more flexible view of the Bible.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
I really can't get behind this article. Part of being a Christian is accepting that Christ is divine and rose from the dead. If you don't accept that, you're merely a "Christ follower" in the same way that someone might be a Gandhi follower or a Kevin Rudd follower. If you want a great moral teacher whose commands you can admire and live by, then take your pick, there have been plenty. But Jesus was different because he conquered death. That's the unique aspect of the Christian claim.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 8:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phil, for me, accepting the validity or otherwise of miracles was never a factor in my eventually discarding Christianity.

For a long time, I was willing to subscribe to the sort of laissez-faire, CofE Christianity I was brought up in. Miracles, I consigned to the unsophisticated, superstitious baggage of the past, best viewed through the instructional lens of mythology rather than treated as literal fact.

What drove me from Christianity - from religion entirely, in fact - was the basic irrationality of religion, and most especially the intolerance and violent fanaticism of too many of its followers.

Just as Richard Dawkins claims to have been radicalised in his atheism by 9/11, I was profoundly shocked out of my benign tolerance for religion by the Jyllands-Posten affair.

Christianity's feverish obsession with sexuality, and its disastrous consequences, haven't helped either.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 8:59:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even though I'm not a Christian I agree with Trav's argument, Christianity without miracles and the Resurrection is just another philosophy of life, like the teachings of Confucious or Epicurus. The author is, in the final analysis, presenting an argument against religion.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 9:42:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the reserection is a key reality]..at the time judeans believed we die and wait for a reserection day,..jesus main mission was to prove we die[but then imediatly get'born again'..into spirit,even a thief will be reborn into their next life[its a fact]

but the mirracles are not...[woe you unbeliving/nation needing signs]see his first mirror call[the cana/wedding feast;jesus CLEARLY states;..'it is not yet my time'..[yet next/thing is he is making whine for drunks?...lol]

see that the servants took the masters'private stash''..not wanting to have the master;lose/face[a servent of a discraced'master'has even more loss of face..[better to risk the masters wrath[than have them or him loose/face]

but to the 2 de mirror-call[feeding 4000/5000],see the hand wash jars,mentioned at the wedding[then later at the temple]were absent at the mount..[thus all did eat all they'wished'..[because the judeans didnt'wish'to eat;sans the handwash/ritual

[note the clever use of seating..[so each watched the other not eat]..the teaching is about how fixed in our faith we really are..[no ritual they would rather starve]

the increase of bread is as easilly explained..[i wont eat,but i will add to the feast,i brought along in case i should meet with a host,with the required ritual/jars..[think of the maids and having oil[be prepared]..the excess-food came from those judeans;'who did not eat[but shared their'plenty'.]

his deciples clearly didnt know;the_ritual[ie re/eating the shew-bread sans'washing their hands'..[to which jesus replied;..not what a man puts in that maketh him unclean..but that which issues forth from it..

we expect miricles..[but our belief built on faith is a weak foundation..[hence the vile of estar/bunnies and satan/clause's],..designed by the vile to weaken faith built on faulse belief in miror-calls

one who blasphemes an-other loves the blasphemy,..by loving the blashamy they reveal..that which..more will be given of[in the next realms]..[for we are ALL BORN AGAIN]..into the fathers/house's many rooms,..but sort into sheep/goats/wheat/chaff/tares.etc based on that we loved to do..[more shall be given...lol]

[each prophet has his own room..[every sect etc,there are uncountable realms of belief/disbelief in the next-life..[we all are sorted by the passion we love..[we have love of debaiting rooms..even for those masses who love to debate the mass
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 9:49:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac (and maybe trav), i would have thought it was up to christians to say what it means to be christian.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 10:53:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher,

You made an incorrect assumption, I was educated at a Christian school and I have some knowledge of the Christian faith. The Nicene Creed states the basic tenets of nearly all Christian demoninations,I suggest you read it, and then, you will understand my argument.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 11:41:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,
I think you are mistaken. Jesus and the Christian Churches claim Jesus conquered death. I just don't believe it.
We live in a universe that obeys the laws of physics and chemistry.
Today water is water and wine is wine and they will be tomorrow. Bugs might cause wine to decay to some other chemical but we can determine such causes.
Three day old dead bodies cannot and do not come back to life. For similar biological reasons virgins do not give birth without insemination and a clone can only be the same sex as the parent.
Peter Singer's "How are we to live?" is a better guide to living than anything based on old religious writings.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 11:59:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Even though I'm not a Christian I agree with Trav's argument, Christianity without miracles and the Resurrection is just another philosophy of life, like the teachings of Confucious or Epicurus. The author is, in the final analysis, presenting an argument against religion.”

The difference between Christianity and philosophy is Christianity demands as fact, the events of both bibles without any supporting evidence. Under those conditions I would class it as mythology. Philosophy is designed to guide and inspire progressive thought and life analysis, not blind faith.

The author makes good points, but you can't have it both ways. It would be psychologically destructive to many, who would struggle to come to terms with what they refuse to accept, It didn't happen. You either accept the claims of christianity or as any logical person would do, see it for what it is, ancient mythology designed to suppress progressive thought and control lives.

As with all myths, the facts regarding Christianity slowly come out as science finds better ways to delve into the past, making it harder and harder for them to continue holding up what is not reality. At least with Confucius, Epicurus and all other philosophers, they can be proven to have existed by independent evidence and don't claim to be anything else but normal humans. Both jesus and god, have no such evidenced support, nor proof, yet claim super human attributes, events and outcomes, against the known facts.

Bushbasher, christians have an entirely different understanding of what it means to be christian, compared to non believers and even non christian believers. In all my years of practise, (semi retired now), I am still amazed at the depth of psychological confusion in christians as they try to reconcile viewable fact, compared to their unsupported faithful adherence.
Posted by stormbay, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 12:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Though one of the worlds most down to earth inhabitants I still have a strong Christian faith. Why? Because 'logic' tells me there is plenty in this universe that is inexplicable and beyond understanding and that the more knowledge gained the more we realise how little is really known.

Growing up in a large extended family where Christian values were practised more than preached fostered 'belief' as a child. I was very much a "WHY" child who would often resist conformity if logical reasons could not be given. In matters of religion my Grandfather was chief source of wisdom. The Bible contains the Christians evidence for belief. He could quote scripture to explain most things but sometimes only say it is simply a matter of faith.

I believe the decline of Christianity in Western society has more to do with affluence than any other factor.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" quoth Karl Marx, translated. Karl, a godless man, nevertheless had it nailed. Eliminate oppression, provide abundant necessities and add the non-essentials that make life 'fun' and what more does Man think he needs? Except maybe more of the same ... There you have it for a huge number of "Westerners". As people tend to (re)turn to God in times of hardship and suffering, it is interesting to think what impact the current economic crisis may have.

Clownfish re: Christianity's feverish obsession with sexuality .... Controls over sexual behavior are an inescapable feature of any society. Think harder. Maybe you are better off "Christian" or surrounded by them than say a pubescent girl in rural Pakistan or Saudi Arabia whose husband should wait until their first menstruation before consumating the 'marriage' since that is the religious belief. That belief also accepts flogging, imprisonment and death as legitimate remedies for sexual indiscretions and that's just one "extreme" religious/cultural example. Give me Jesus who preached "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" anytime ...
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 12:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
divine_msn, you are quite correct. I should have said *religion's* feverish obsession with sexuality.

Religious fanaticism seems to hold an extraordinary appeal for men who are completely incapable of a mature relationship to women.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 1:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav wrote: "But Jesus was different because he conquered death. That's the unique aspect of the Christian claim."

Not so. The Finnish hero Lemminkäinen was resurrected by god after being dismembered by his enemy. For Hindus, Ganesh was brought back to life by Siva, albeit with an elephant's head, and of course there's Adonis, Mithras, Osiris, all of whom died and were resurrected by God.

And that's just a start. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Life-death-rebirth_gods

Have you considered that you might be worshiping a false prophet? I hear God gets a bit upset about that.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 2:09:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho I was making a comparison with philosophy, I wasn't suggesting that Christianity is the only religion who claims someone rose from the dead.

But on that note, if you can give me evidence, both experential and historical evidence, for any of those other resurrected Gods which is even somewhere near comparable to the experential and historical evidence for Jesus, then we'll discuss them.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 3:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Perhaps there are many “lapsed” believers who would gladly return to the fold if the acceptance of miracles wasn't so pivotal to the “Christian” label.'

But take away the miracles and there is nothing left. Intangible all-powerful God in the sky -- a miracle, surely? Creating the Universe out of nothing? Another miracle. Extracting non-material sentient beings out of dead people and providing them all with virtual wings and harps -- gotta be a miracle. Papal infallibility? A miracle if ever there was one.

The Anglican Church provides a wonderful example of what happens to religion when it tries to be sensible and honest: numbers nose-dive when the members realise that the priests can't guarantee them salvation after all. Catholicism is going the same way. A warm fuzzy non-miraculous God just doesn't provide that sense of moral superiority which keeps religion going.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 3:13:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, the historical evidence is that lots of people believed in them, as they do in Christ. But if you mean written accounts, there's the Bhagavad Gita for all your Hindu resurrection needs, the Grimm Brothers tell of Snow White's miraculous return from death, and of course the holy Koran reminds us that Mohammed is God's prophet. Not very relevant, though, because the Bible and Koran are no more reliable than oral histories, although the Koran gets points because it's more recent and coherent.

Oh, and the Australian aboriginals have a few resurrection figures, too.

And what do you mean by "experiential"? Do you know someone alive today who was present at Christ's resurrection?
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 3:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most Christians would affirm the resurrection, but there has always been a diversity of views about what this means, stretching from the most literalist reanimation of Jesus’ corpse to a (non-supernatural) developing sense among Jesus’ disciples that his presence continued with them after death.

The NT itself is oblique on these matters. No-one actually witnessed a resurrection, the only testimony is to what happened after. Elements of the post-resurrection appearances suggest Jesus had a physical body (scars, eating fish) but others indicate something other than a “normal” body (the failure of disciples to recognise Jesus, sudden appearances and disappearances, a vision appearing only to Paul but not seen by others with him). Plus, the genre of the post-resurrection appearances is disputed.

I get very nervous when people, whether believers or non-believers, assert that Christians “must” accept one particular interpretation of the resurrection
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 4:22:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav c'mon mate you are only reading stories by men, show me the evidence then I will beieve you, there is no evidence that a God or Gods exist keeping in mind there are over 3000 different Gods, which one is correct, not one of them. If we look at the Pope he is chosen by men to control the masses, it has nothing to do with some divine being to select him for that role, lets get in the real world.
I was dead before I came, a short interlude living, and will be dead again after I go, I will not know I ever existed, do I really want to be some ficticious soul or spirit and be in no man's land for trillions of years. I don't think so.
Children should not be taught religious instruction until they are old enough to make up their own mind about it, parents should have no say in this area when young and influence them, this is wrong.
Lastly special rooms are being set up with prayer mats to accommodate a certain religion, this is als wrong, I would suggest that every other religion have special rooms set up as well and that includes Atheism.
Posted by Ojnab, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 6:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read Phil Dye's sensible article and simply make these comments: 1. To most Australians, the Easter break is just another 4 or 5 day holiday, and the majority of Australians do not attend a church service at Easter (or most other times); we are essentially a secular nation. 2. For many Australians, and certainly myself, the various accounts in the Bible are just not credible in today's enlightened world. Thus the concepts of miracles, virgin births, resurrections, an afterlife (in heaven or hell), a six-day creation about 6000 years ago, Noah's Ark, and so on are just mythsand legends. 3. The challenges and problems faced by parents in raising their children cause us to lead little children to believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and so on. But sending children to Sunday School or to a church school where their heads are filled with nonsense before they are old enough to face reality is nothing short of indoctrination. "Give me the child till he is seven, and I will give you the man" so the Jesuits were alleged to have said. 4. Today's modern, scientifically aware world where humans now know about electronics, evolution, genetics, DNA, etc precludes the "miracle" stories of the Bible from any rational belief. 5. Notwithstanding all that I have just said, I fully realise that raising kids in today's technological is a daunting challenge when it comes to establishing codes of acceptable moral and ethical behaviour, but the simple "Golden Rule" is not a bad start.
Posted by phenologist, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 10:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really don't get people who cite modern scientific understanding as a reason for disbelieving fundamental Christian tenets. Events like the Resurrection are described as 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' for a good reason - by definition, they don't conform to natural laws. You wouldn't bother founding a religion over something that could have happened naturally.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 10:40:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I really don't get people who cite modern scientific understanding as a reason for disbelieving fundamental Christian tenets. Events like the Resurrection are described as 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' for a good reason - by definition, they don't conform to natural laws. You wouldn't bother founding a religion over something that could have happened naturally."

But what reason do we have to believe they happened at all? 'Somebody says so...' OK, but given that we have millions of proven examples of people telling lies, and zero proven examples of miracles, which is more likely? Does your tolerance for 'miracles' extend to those witnessed by Joseph Smith, and the thousands carried out every day in India by 'holy men'? To those of the Buddhist faith, Islam and Hinduism? When every religion claims to have miracles, then either the claims are false or miracles don't actually tell us anything about the divine. And if you take the miracles away -- as I pointed out earlier -- you don't really have much left.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 16 April 2009 7:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phenologist claims that Phil’s article was sensible. However, Mark Duffett has very succinctly explained why it was not.

There were many other aspects of Phil Dye’s article that were not very sensible. I’ll just mention a couple:

Why would an article that is entirely contemptuous of the Christian religion and religion in general want to conclude by bothering to give advice to the leaders of that religion? If the religion is false then better advice for its leaders would be to toss their pointy hats and go and get a proper job.

If someone is going to bother writing an article on miracles and the Christian faith (or any other subject) it would be good if they were at least a little familiar with their subject matter. For instance, Dye mentions the reformation. The reformation was not concerned at all with miracles.

One last point, Dye talks about the decline in Christian belief over the last thirty years in Australia. I’m not sure which country Phil is living in, but by many measures which can be observed, the opposite is true. Granted that church attendance is not what it was in the 1950s, but a lot of that was very nominal. These days, despite Christian belief being non-PC, and religion still largely taboo in polite conversation, many churches have attendances numbering in the thousands, and increasing, filled with quite fervent believers.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 16 April 2009 12:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miracles are defined in Noah Websters BIG dictionary, as something wonderful. Something which seems to go beyond the known laws of nature; And is held to be the act of a supernatural being. It is wonderful that little children have already started to think for themselves by nine, but by nineteen it is a miracle if they are not already overtaken by the herding instinct.

The Holy Bible is all about miracles, and to invent such a story, defies imagination. It is rather a pity that Constantine burned all the Roman records, of the time, but actions speak louder than words, and there was no shortage of people willing to die for their beliefs, as Jesus Christ willingly died for his. The very fact that Jesus Christ went to the Cross without a whimper, when given a clear choice of life or death by Pontius Pilate is a miracle in itself and is an an inspiration.

The miracles that were heaped on the British Empire in World War II are almost beyond belief as well. How come the Germans did not just sweep into Dunkirk, and wipe out the British Army as they had done up till then. In the end the wartime casualties of the British Empire, were a small 512,000 both civilian and military. 100,000 of those were Australians. WWII cost the world that did not believe in miracles the total casualties of sixty million, according to Google.

Somehow, the Christian nations of the United States of America and the British Empire prevailed against very efficient and destructive fighting machines acting in concert against them. Then the winners of the war turned their backs on the miracle worker.

Christianity is all about miracles. It is a miracle that the society we live in has not disintegrated, as the secularists and atheists have dismantled the system of miracle government that used to deliver justice, and put a system in place that delivers law without justice. Easter is but one of the miracles. Love is a miracle in itself. Christianity is practical applied love, and delivered practical efficient justice
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 16 April 2009 2:59:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dan, do you have any evidence that christian belief in australia is as prevalent or as strong as it was 30 years ago? you claim to observe this, but do you have anything to offer beyond the anecdotal?
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 16 April 2009 3:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The miracles that were heaped on the British Empire in World War II are almost beyond belief as well. How come the Germans did not just sweep into Dunkirk, and wipe out the British Army as they had done up till then. In the end the wartime casualties of the British Empire, were a small 512,000 both civilian and military. 100,000 of those were Australians. WWII cost the world that did not believe in miracles the total casualties of sixty million, according to Google.”

The above is another example of why logical thinking people don't believe the stories of the bible. Those who do, try to create miracles by manipulating facts to suit their agenda, even though evidence they provide, can be easily debunked. So their credibility suffers by their own hand as does their belief.

The civilian and military casualties in WW2 were, United Kingdom 449800, Australia 41200, Canada 45300, India 1587000, NZ 11900, Singapore 50000 and that's not all the commonwealth. The world total was 72754900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Completely different to “Peter the believer”, who may be a believer, but not to be believed.

The reason why Hitler didn't invade the UK was a very rational one, he didn't have sea or air superiority over the channel, so couldn't support or supply his invading troops or successfully navigate the channel and was suffering heavy loses of aircraft trying to subdue Enlgand. No miracle at all, just common sense logistics.

It's the same with the use of Pilate and Herod, there is ample historical, chronological, government, local, jewish and Roman written records' plus archaeological and anthropological evidence, showing this never happened. Yet there is not one piece of evidence supporting it. The biblical evidence is contradictory as pointed out, with varying un-witnessed accounts, so all hearsay. Just like every miracle claimed.
Posted by stormbay, Thursday, 16 April 2009 4:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Earlier today I attended an Anglican funeral service. The minister used the occasion as an opportunity for a bit of preaching, and read out the bit from the bible where Jesus claimed that the only way to God was through him. What struck me was that the good reverend cited Jesus' purported resurrection as evidence that this claim is true, i.e. that Jesus differed from other claimants to divine authority specifically because he had been resurrected.

It seems to me that Christians who believe literally in miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus are on very shaky ground here - the corollary being that if there were no actual miracles then Jesus is just another wandering cult leader. I'm no Christian, but I think that's what Phil Dye is trying to get at in his article, and I tend to agree with him.

Christianity would be much improved by the removal of its hocus pocus aspects. Not to mention stodgy protestant preachers.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 16 April 2009 7:42:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jesus was resercted in spirit, its not rocket science
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmgXBOdJ.9wA2qNXNyoA?p=jesus+resurrection+into+spirit&y=Search&fr=sfp&fr2=sb-top

jesus isnt...[nor ever claimed to be god]...he claimed no miracles, and for a fact rebutted those needing miracles as a basis for belief, but there are those who need miracles...[who in being weak in faith reveal they have no faith]

much that passes for current xtianity,is the very antisthesis of what the christ stood for, where does it say hang my dead image on the wall[when the command not to take graven image..[and not to have any before god...[not even his sun/son,who is not a child of god?or indeed claiming he died for our sins..[yet with the next breath claim he didnt die],...he died in the flesh[clearly]
#
jesus lived,jesus died,but his spirit lives even today,..he left many teachings,was witnessed by many who saw their witness into word,

there are those who may wish he never lived, but that at best is speculation..[but even if they could validate he didnt, the teachings he left behind aRE THE CORE,..of getting to know our maker, via the risen christ

well may those with vile in their heart decry love [based on their fears,]...that is because ye sought to know him not, ..this extends to those who veil their vile to misslead his flock..[the wolves in sheep clothing]

..by their deeds are they revealed.you see them with their love of rite and ritual..[wearing clothes worth a kings ransom, while children starve and are murded in their mothers wombs and in useless wars simply to steal others god given gifts,

jesus may forgive you lot..[i never can]..repent ye scum..god loves a repentant sinner... god loves you so i must try..[but sans the will to repent you deserve your realm in the darkness because you rejected the love and the light,

rejected the one [god] who loves you[gave you the most vile your very life to live..[knowing that in time you would repent your love of vile]...why not try love now..[while it still matters].. how many more need die ...just so you can think this fleshy corpse is all there is
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 16 April 2009 8:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I deliberately joined this thread late.

Trav with all his Christian knowledge can label a person who doubts the bible record as "merely a Christ follower"...he has already labelled them. Is that really Christian to do that Trav?

You fail on several of Jesus' explicit instructions

Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not Judge others"

John 8:7 ....let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...”.

Christians are correct to question miracles and luckily I have brought a simple test.

How many churches have regular prayer and healing meetings?

How many amputees have had their legs restored through these prayer meetings and God's grace?

The answer is none - so either God refuses to heal amputees OR he has something against amputees OR God can't heal amputees OR the Bible is wrong!

Jesus allegedly said:

John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”

Matthew 17:20...NOTHING will be impossible for you!

All a Christian needs is the "faith of a mustard seed"!

Well a mustard seed is a very small seed...so either Christians don't have enough faith or Jesus and the Bible tell fibs.

Can there be any other possibility I haven't considered?

Why don't Christians ask their preachers these harder questions?

I mean the stock answer in preference to "I don't know" is "God works in mysterious ways" but is this an acceptable answer from a teacher?

Is not telling the truth and answering "I don't know" a little deceiptful? Is this Christian?

I agree with others that if "the resurrection of Jesus is untrue" then Christianity is another philosophy. I was going to say "just another philosophy" but to use the word 'just" fails to acknowledge the generally good effects that Jesus' alleged teachings have had on society.

Of course there is the 2002 find of what some say is the burial "Ossuary" of Jesus but this is desputed naturally. For if this was proven to be true the resurrection would then be very questionable!

General Info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus

Against the Ossuary as Jesus'

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/M%20Heiser%20Ossuary.pdf

and

http://graal.co.uk/ossuary.html

and another view

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/new_discoveries/james_ossuary.html

Happy reading!
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 16 April 2009 9:59:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
I challenge the notion from Dye that the church or Christian belief in Australia has declined over the last 30 years. Of course, that is debateable, as it depends on which measure you use.

It’s probably true that overall weekend church attendances are down from 1979. But I would argue that this is only one measure. How can you measure nominalism, people who only go for social reasons or whatever?

The following are only my observations. Perhaps others can verify that what I say is true for their region or otherwise:

The Baptist church around the corner from where I grew up was big (seating several hundred), but in the 1990s they sold it to build a bigger one, more than twice the size. And it is usually full.

The Assemblies of God in Australia is a Christian movement starting in the 1930s, which has experienced rapid growth in the last few decades. It has multiplied in number of congregations and adherents several times in the last 30 years.

Pentecostal churches alone in Australia put more bums on seats on any given weekend than AFL football matches, and no one is saying football is in decline.

30 years ago, no one had ever heard of a creationist. Now they attract the biggest angst, insults, and emotionally driven debate on the OLO Forum (after perhaps global warming).

Every large city in Australia has a Christian radio station, as well as there being Christian TV stations available on cable TV. This wasn’t the case 30 years ago.

I heard one survey from America which said that in any given week, more people admit to praying than going to paid work, driving a car, or having sex. I know it would probably be different in Australia, but my point is that it depends a lot on what measure is used. I would be curious to look at church offerings as a percentage of GDP compared to 30 years ago. I’m guessing it might be favourable.

In some ways, the church in Australia is stronger than it ever was.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 17 April 2009 4:39:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dan, that's a "no" then?

i don't for a minute think christianity in australia is in its death throes. (no thanks to charmers like jensen and pell, i'd suggest). but you'll not be surprised if i take little stock of your personal observations.

you say, twice, it depends upon what measure you use. i do appreciate that surveys and statistics is pretty obtuse, and prone to abuse. but, i know of no formal measure suggesting that the prevalence and strength of christian belief in australia has not declined.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 17 April 2009 9:26:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Trav with all his Christian knowledge can label a person who doubts the bible record as "merely a Christ follower"...he has already labelled them. Is that really Christian to do that Trav?

You fail on several of Jesus' explicit instructions

Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not Judge others"

John 8:7 ....let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...”.

Christians are correct to question miracles and luckily I have brought a simple test."

Those verses have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You've taken a couple of verses completely out of context.

At the end of the day, if you don't accept the possibility of miracles, you can't call yourself a Christian, by any definition. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, look at all or any multi denominational definition of Christian you like. If you don't accept the existence of a God who at very least set the world into motion and has the ability to intervene as he pleases (and did in the case of Jesus) then you are not a Christian, plain and simple. That has nothing to do with judging sinners.

Sancho, there's simply not similarly good evidence for Mohammed's miracles or Buddha's miracles as there is for Jesus Resurrection. This, of course, does nothing to prove the truth of the resurrection claims, I'm simply saying it's an isolated case because there isn't similarly good evidence for any other ancient miracles.
Posted by Trav, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I challenge the notion from Dye that the church or Christian belief in Australia has declined over the last 30 years. Of course, that is debateable, as it depends on which measure you use.”

What measure do you use to explain why 95% of country churches and 75% of urban churches have closed.

“Pentecostal churches alone in Australia put more bums on seats on any given weekend than AFL football matches, and no one is saying football is in decline.”

I'd really like to see supporting statistics for this, especially seeing a church getting 35-55000 regularly each week as do individual AFL games, even on a Sunday. Or the more than 280000 attending all AFL games each weekend. I'd also like to see the combined numbers for all pentecostal churches Australia wide compared to the combined numbers of AFL attendees, along with the hundreds of thousands who go and participate in local Saturday, Sunday AFL. Then you could add soccer, NRL and Rugby attendances to align to the various christian church attendances and compare them. These links will show the veracity of the poster in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Australia

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17164.htm
Posted by stormbay, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:50:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone can call themselves a Christian. All you have to do is follow Jesus' teachings and believe in him. John 3:16

Labelling someone Trav, breaks Jesus' rules!

I read many of the things Christians post often breaking Jesus' express instructions and selling an unintelligent God.

Why would the most intelligent being ever, who can do anything and everything, a God, who can create Universes in a split second, allow his beloved son to be crucified?

He doesn't need grand gestures, he doesn't need to wipe out people as he did with the Egytians first-born in Exodus and many others.

He can just say...all your sins are forgiven. That's what Jesus allegedly did!

But no, that's too logical!.

I think if there is a God he is more intelligent than the Bible illustrates and Christians believe and teach.

I don't see him intervening in our lives, he doesn't feed the starving, he doesn't heal the crippled.

If there is a God, he loves us unconditionally, and is laughing at how humans turn myth into reality by deluding themselves! He wouldn't be vicious, jealous or vindictive!

He is probably ashamed that his followers believe that he is so unintelligent. On one hand creates all things, and then is accused of creating ridiculous laws and agreeing to the murderous actions in the OT.

It is ludicrous to think he allowed his son to be killed to save us from sin! He has the power to do that without the suffering!

So I guess on Miracles the fact that all your prayers will not regrow an amputated limb proves the delusion!

The fact that you pray for a better world makes you good people...the fact that your prayers aren't answered proves that God will not act.

So now you add "has the ability to intervene as he pleases"!

Jesus said John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”

This is an unequivocal statement! By adding "as he pleases" you modify Jesus' words...Jesus would have said"....I will do it if I please" if that was his intention.
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 17 April 2009 3:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Anyone can call themselves a Christian. All you have to do is follow Jesus' teachings and believe in him. John 3:16"

Does that include believing him when he told us he's the Son of God?

"Labelling someone Trav, breaks Jesus' rules!"

Not at all. Jesus labelled plenty of people, for example when he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. This is clearly not the same as judging someone's heart or their sins- that is God The Father's business.

"Why would the most intelligent being ever, who can do anything and everything, a God, who can create Universes in a split second, allow his beloved son to be crucified?"

Why not?

"Jesus said John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”"

What does "in my name" mean? I would assume that asking for something in his name would imply something within his will. And why would we ever be certain that what we ask is within his will?

Who are we to assume that we should ask anything, which is against Gods will, and just expect that he'll grant it? God is not a vending machine, and it is only removing one verse from it's context and away from common sense that allows this idea to creep in
Posted by Trav, Friday, 17 April 2009 3:44:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am interested in the notion that someone needs to believe in miracles to be able to assume the label 'christian'.

I do get a sense that the newer churches are aggressively assuming the role of gatekeepers. Possibly a carry over of the 'infamous' "Five Fundementals" from the Yanks which basically stated that without a belief in: Inerrancy of the Scriptures, The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus, The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith, The bodily resurrection of Jesus, The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming), then one wasn't a Christian.

America however has produced other notables such as the Jefferson Bible which was TJ's attempt to get to the core of Jesus' teachings without the sexing up from the four evangalists. It has also produced Bishop Spong whose writings have shown an alternative path to recognising the historical Jesus and the extraordinary Jesus.

Are we able to refer to those two as Christians? I would have thought so, just as I am happy to refer to myself as Australian even though I was often enjoined through the Howard years by bumperstickers saying "If you don't like it leave" to find another affiliation since there was a heap I didn't like about our direction as a nation.

I personally get sustainence from the bible and Christ's teachings and it troubles me to see the uses to which he and his teachings are sometimes put. But ultimately it is a great lesson on what it means to be human, all of us with different needs and many of us likewise prepared to create a different version of this extrodinary man to assuage them.
Posted by csteele, Friday, 17 April 2009 6:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Listen up, you guys.
I do not believe that Christ was God.I do not believe that any gospel has an authentic biography of Jesus. But it was an age of charismatics who did remarkablethings including healings that couldnt be explained rationally.And all this from other sources on the period.So why not Jesus?

These days we have all known of healings and other deeds performed that have defied any rational explanation.There are many things that we scientists arent able to explain. I know about a guy who fell out of an 8 storey building and was horribly injured as you might expect.he was almost pronounced dead. A faith healer was allowed in to visit him atthe isistence of the parents and from that day on the patient began to recover and was finally discharged though stillm unableto walk freely and needs extensive physio. It happens frequently enough to let us believe that such healings dont commence from the 20th century but could have been possible in 1st century Palestine. Jesus could well have been one of these charismatic healers.
My point is...so what? What exactly does it prove?...NIX

socratease
Posted by socratease, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Show me where Jesus said "I am God"! I can show you where he said he wasn't:

John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I".

This is unequivocal with no shadow of doubt!

He prayed to "OUR Father who art in heaven" Matthew 6:9

AND

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he (God) gave his only begotten son (Jesus)etc.

AND

John14:6"....nobody comes to the FATHER but by me"

PLUS

On the cross he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46

Who was he speaking to? Himself? How could he have forsaken himself?

Trav...In your mind Jesus is at least the "Son of God" or biblically wrong "God".

Jesus calling a Pharisee names isn't saying you can do it. Jesus' teaching is "Do Unto others..." Matthew 7:12

Are you putting yourself on the same level as Jesus? I don't think he gave Christians the right to call people names! Sorry! That goes against his teachings!

Why would you ask "what does in his name mean"?

Your the Christian, when you pray don't you say "I ask these things in Jesus' name AMEN" at the end of your prayers?

But you failed to answer "Why doesn't he grow amputees legs back"?

It undermines what he allegedly said here...

Jesus allegedly said Matthew 17:20 "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and NOTHING shall be impossible unto you."

All I ask is for Christians to show that they have the "faith of a mustard seed".

Jesus said it ...not me!
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:44:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I really can't get behind this article. Part of being a Christian is accepting that Christ is divine and rose from the dead. If you don't accept that, you're merely a "Christ follower" in the same way that someone might be a Gandhi follower or a Kevin Rudd follower. If you want a great moral teacher whose commands you can admire and live by, then take your pick, there have been plenty. But Jesus was different because he conquered death. That's the unique aspect of the Christian claim.'

Trav's comment is not good enough. What you are saying is that in order to be a Christian you have to believe an event that is ridiculous. Corpses do NOT spring to life in any literal sense. This is to state the bleeding obvious?

So, rather than encourage honest people to believe a lie, wouldn't it be better to promote Church as a purely cultural experience? One that is social, enjoyable and educational. But without the fabricated mythology.
Posted by TR, Saturday, 18 April 2009 8:43:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated, I've come to the conclusion that you're not interested in a rational discussion, and that you're simply here to argue and not much else. If that conclusion of mine is incorrect then I sincerely apologise, however that seems the most rational conclusion based on comments like the below:

"Are you putting yourself on the same level as Jesus? I don't think he gave Christians the right to call people names! Sorry! That goes against his teachings!"

If you would like to engage in normal discussion without making ridiculous and illogical comments like that, then you'll need to show that to be the case, and show it well, before I continue replying to you.

TR, Yes indeed. If someone doesn't believe in the possibility of miracles, and more specifically the resurrection of Jesus, then they cannot call themselves a Christian. That's quite simply a non negotiable belief of the Christian faith. Any historical Christian faith that there is. Catholic, protestant, whatever. Look at the apostles creed, the nicene creed, any other historical declaration of Christianity and you will see that the resurrection is, well, kind of crucial.

If you consider the resurrection to be ridiculous then don't believe it. For me personally, I've never actually heard anyone give any other plausible explanation for the established historical events of the empty tomb and the disciples belief in post mortem appearances of Jesus. So I have no reason to disbelieve the resurrection accounts. They are multiply and independently attested, by early eyewitnesses. Using historical enquiry, the events surrounding the resurrection stand up to skepticism, so I see no reason to disbelieve the explanation which makes the most sense of those events and has easily the most explanatory power
Posted by Trav, Saturday, 18 April 2009 12:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav

Occam's Razor - 'The simplest explanation is the most likely'

Scenario 1. The body of Jesus was removed by persons unknown.

Scenario 2. Jesus reanimated and went for a stroll.

Which do you think is most likely?
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 18 April 2009 12:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miracles are defined in Noah Webster’s BIG dictionary, as something wonderful. Something which seems to go beyond the known laws of nature; And is held to be the act of a supernatural being.

In the lead up to the Federal election in 2007, both JH and KR went on youtube, asking for a miracle. KR wanted his miracle, and got a change in the constitution of the Parliament of the Commonwealth representing 46 new members either kicked out or elected in. JH asked for the same miracle, on the same night, when they both were piped by closed circuit television, into packed churches throughout Australia where about 200,000 people and Almighty God took the broadcast.

In the lead up to the 2004 election only JH was entitled to ask for a miracle, as Mark Latham was an atheist, and atheists don’t believe in them. JH got his miracle on that occasion as fourteen percentage points in the polls left Labor and went to the coalition. That same fourteen percent stayed with KR, but he had to work for it.

In December 2004, KR started to work for his miracle. He had been a Christian for about ten years then. Brought up Roman Catholic he started attending the Anglican Church, and believing in miracles. Miracles don’t just happen, you have to ask for them. On the 7th August 2006, KR was at a National Christian Heritage Conference, in Canberra and made his first pitch for the Christian vote, and his miracle. It is here: http://www.australiaschristianheritageforum.org.au/Resources/KevinRuddspaper.pdf

We need a miracle in New South Wales. It will be a miracle and the answer to a lot of prayers, if KR fixes up the Federal Court and it follows Labor legislation, and starts to fulfil its role as a Christian court, so that when a person prays in it, he can have his miracle.

New South Wales needs a miracle to survive. Everything associated with it is either broken down, tainted with corruption, riven by rorts, or simply malfunctioning since atheist government was introduced in 1970. Pray for your miracle, folks, KR can deliver.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 18 April 2009 1:07:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Trav if you're annoyed with the question "Are you putting yourself on the same level as Jesus?" but it was in response to your comment <<Not at all. Jesus labelled plenty of people>>

I took it from your response and what you typed about my posts on another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8753&page=0#139231 that you were justifying your use of name calling and inappropriate insulting comments, as similar to Jesus.

I just don't think this stuff from a Christian presents your Lord Jesus and his teachings in a very good light.

If that offends...I'm sorry, but I have witnessed the Christian labelling of people here often. I believe it is unChristian.

It seems that many Christians, including GrahamY, can't make a very strong case when I quote Bible passages in context.

I would have thought that all Christian's should be able to debate/discuss the Bible far better than they apparently can.

I concerns me when people call themselves Christian but act in an unChristian way.

If a Christian is a person who believes and follows the teachings of their Christ Jesus, then they should, at the very least, follow his explicit instructions.

The fact that I, a questioning spiritual person, and many atheists, seem to know their Bibles better than Christians, doesn't say much for the teachings imparted by the supposed Christian organisations.

If the Christian method of debating the Bible is to take their cricket bat and ball and go home it doesn't say much for Christian Scholarship.

I ask tough questions BUT so did Jesus when he was attacked by the Pharisees.

Is it that Christians just want to believe, and the correct use of Jesus' teachings aren't as important as the belief?

But back to this thread...to an outsider it seems that all the prayers said around the world just aren't being answered, miracles aren't occurring and so Jesus' alleged words in

Matthew 17:20 "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and NOTHING shall be impossible unto you."

seem highly suspect.
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 18 April 2009 5:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2<<But you failed to answer"Why doesn't he grow amputees legs back"?>>why should he[heard of karma?,...why should god make grow back things man's will removed, besides in time man kind will be able to do, such things via science..[i note your not attacking science for not being able to do it...lol,..

where is the need to be CARFULL IF GOD JUST GROWS BACK any-dumb thing people cut off...who's will said god grows back limbs,..It in no way undermines what he allegedly said here...

<<..If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed,ye shall say unto this mountain,Remove hence to yonder place;and it shall remove;and NOTHING shall be impossible unto you.">>..jesus is jesus just as remberant is rembrant..[or shakespear shakespear[or einstein enstein],..they are all unique..[just as you are unique]

[just as we ALL got our strengths and weakness[skills and talents[some use theirs to help others..[others use theirs to destroy..like you love to destroy others little faith..[a huge sin]taking the little faith some have.

<<All I ask is for Christians to show that they have the"faith of a mustard seed"...>>>MATE YOUR GREAT AT PRETENDING WISDOM you likely recall from other debates..[i doudt you ever bothered reading the whole book,besides musted seed has no faith..[its a unit measure,as to how little faith it would[or could take]..if fools like you didnt destroy it as soon as it appears,...you creatures do your vile well?

yet clearly enjoy rubbing the same points,into your brothers faces.

it is so easy claiming your clever critiques..[but what else are you capable of doing..[appart from destroying the weak faith of others..[you ever build up faith?,..or just get off on destroying others?

<<Jesus said it...not me!>>..mate you use his name,his words to desroy;to insult his flock,..what you got nothing better to do that attack others beliefs?
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 18 April 2009 7:27:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay,
You ask to see the statistics and then you provide your own. You say 280000 attend AFL matches each week. I’m not sure of what the latest figures are for Pentecostal churches but it would be something in this order.

However, it is not really a game of one-up-man-ship. Churches are not actually competing against football or any other sporting code. Some Christians love footy. My only point was that many parts of the Christian church are flourishing and belief overall is not in decline as Dye alleges.

Sometimes strength should be measured in growth indicators, the ages of participants, or other indicators, rather than flat numbers.

When I say that the church in Australia is strong, I say this only in comparison to other decades. In reality, the church is a long, long way from achieving its goals in this country. The enemy we battle is not footy, but rather injustice, deception, lack of knowledge, superstition, and unbelief.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 18 April 2009 8:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> belief overall is not in decline as Dye alleges.

yes, you keep saying this.

>> Sometimes strength should be measured in growth indicators, the ages of participants, or other indicators, rather than flat numbers.

sure. choose a measure. you might be right, some measure may support your claim. you have specified no such measure.

>> The enemy we battle is not footy, but rather injustice, deception, lack of knowledge, superstition, and unbelief.

now that's chutzpah!
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 18 April 2009 11:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<”You ask to see the statistics and then you provide your own. You say 280000 attend AFL matches each week. I’m not sure of what the latest figures are for Pentecostal churches but it would be something in this order.”>

I asked to see the statistics for your claim of growing church numbers and provided real church statistics representing the opposite. Just as Trav and others claim evidence for the resurrection, when all the evidence shows the complete opposite. Your belief makes you lead a life of self deception, the article points this out, even though the author may not have had that intent. The problem you all face is you can't support anything you say with acceptable evidence, yet you talk of logic where there is none. There is nothing logical about believing in a god against all the rational evidence, common sense and historical fact.

You want it to be real, so go to any lengths to deceive yourself into believing what is not, is. The only support you then have is denial and claims which can't be verified in any acceptable way. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, which you demand for yourself. Yet you refuse to allow others to deny your belief using realistic and acceptable based evidence. That's why we have so much misery in the world, god's follows trying to force everyone to believe as they do, with no credibility to back them up.
Posted by stormbay, Sunday, 19 April 2009 7:39:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay,
I’m wondering what I said to get you so upset. I am accused of denying reality.

This was my contention, that “many parts of the Christian church are flourishing and belief overall is not in decline as Dye alleges.”

While I have already admitted that overall attendance at church is probably down from 1979, there are some encouraging signs. (And sometimes cutting off the dead wood isn’t such a bad thing.)

I grew up in the Melbourne area. Kameel Majdali stated fairly recently (in 2004) that “1,600 local churches that open their doors to 220,000 Melbournians on a weekly basis.” That’s a fair whack! As Bushbasher admitted, the church is not yet quite at death’s door.

In 1979, how many large churches were there attracting more than 500 people each week? Not many. Since then we’ve seen the growth of some of Melbourne’s mega-churches: Waverley Christian Fellowship, Crossway Baptist Church, Richmond Assembly of God, Mount Evelyn Christian Fellowship, and Faith! Christian Church, Dandenong (though not as mega as some of those in Sydney).

The Pentecostal churches have seen much growth since 1979. On its website, the ACC (Australia’s largest Pentecostal movement) currently claims 1,120 churches with over 215,000 constituents. There are other Pentecostal churches that don’t come under this umbrella as Pentecostals are a fairly loosely connected bunch. And following what I said in previous posts, while I’ll be willing to admit that in 2009 they might not outnumber AFL matches every week, they often would (especially in the summer months).

Statistics are a funny thing. ABS census returns put Pentecostals at closer to 100 000, but there wasn’t a box for them to tick. Many didn’t write ‘Pentecostal’ but rather the name of their fellowship, and as I said above, there a fairly loosely connected bunch.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 19 April 2009 10:16:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UOG...You are correct...How could I dare to tell people what the Bible really says....lol...Treat people like mushrooms keeping them in the dark and feed them crap!

How dare I quote Chapter and verse from the Bible that proves you wrong...it's UnChristian knowing your Bible...lol!

No wonder Jesus called Pharisees snakes!

Have you failed the test of bible knowledge & intelligence?...well done!

People have amputated legs for more reasons than accidents...Wake up!

Do you believe that a baby who is born with a deformity, and has the leg amputated, had the disability and the amputation as a result of "man's will" and that the baby should have been more careful and amputees don't deserve God's healing?

Even though Jesus said John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”?

Your answer states Jesus' word is wrong in this verse!

If God was the loving, caring God that Churches sell, surely he would help an amputee? Your answer on the reason for God, not growing back amputated legs, is pathetic!

Even though Jesus is quoted as saying John 14:14 you know better...so much for Jesus' word!

Do you belong to a crazy, backwater, religious group?...Wake up!

I question science all the time...just because I haven't done it here doesn't mean I don't!

See UOG your lack of bible knowledge fails you terribly!

You rudely (do unto others...Matthew 7:12), call me a fool (I turn the other cheek..Matthew 5:39) but at least I can spell mustard...lol and at least I can understand Jesus' express instructions.

By your calling me a fool you have just failed Christ! Father in heaven please forgive UOG he fails you!

Please don't explain Biblical passages to anyone you seem unqualified.

So it seems that Christians can cherry pick verses, they can sell the unGodly notion of hell & damnation and that is fine. But someone asks a few tough questions quoting chapter & verse as Jesus did, and they go to water.

The son of God, Jesus' own words undermine church teachings! Amazing! Perhaps Church teachings are simply WRONG!
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 19 April 2009 12:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'TR, Yes indeed. If someone doesn't believe in the possibility of miracles, and more specifically the resurrection of Jesus, then they cannot call themselves a Christian. That's quite simply a non negotiable belief of the Christian faith. Any historical Christian faith that there is. Catholic, protestant, whatever. Look at the apostles creed, the nicene creed, any other historical declaration of Christianity and you will see that the resurrection is, well, kind of crucial.

If you consider the resurrection to be ridiculous then don't believe it. For me personally, I've never actually heard anyone give any other plausible explanation for the established historical events of the empty tomb and the disciples belief in post mortem appearances of Jesus. So I have no reason to disbelieve the resurrection accounts. They are multiply and independently attested, by early eyewitnesses. Using historical enquiry, the events surrounding the resurrection stand up to skepticism, so I see no reason to disbelieve the explanation which makes the most sense of those events and has easily the most explanatory power'

Trav, the Holy Bible is not wholly reliable. This fact has been established by the majority of serious historians. Put simply, there is no excuse for believing that the Bible is literally true. If you attest that corpses spring to life, or that virgins get pregnant then you are either burying your head in the sand, or engaging in a delusion. And I should point out that the same can be said of Muslims and their literal interpretation of the Koran. The idea that a 'being of light' recited the Holy Book to Mohammed is just plain ridiculous.

The real tragedy is that well meaning children and adolescents have to finally work all this out in the adulthood, and then have to suffer the consequences that they have been lied to all their life. It's far better that theologians came out and tell the truth right from the start.

(I recommend the book 'Atheism Explained' by David Ramsey Steele as a complete disproof of the 'personal' God)
Posted by TR, Sunday, 19 April 2009 12:27:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR, you'll need to be a bit more coherent than that. You jump from arguing that historians has shown the bible to be unreliable, to talking about corpses rising from the dead. But what you've completely missed is that historians are not qualified to talk about such matters. Those are metaphysical or philosophical questions. An example: A historian doesn't say "person X did (or did not) do a miracle", all they say is "People around them believed they did miraculous acts, and this is supported (or questioned) by these surrounding historical circumstances: X, Y and Z".

The NT is generally historically reliable in the places and events that it talks about, but when you start talking about the supernatural matters, that becomes an issue of faith, philosophy and the like. This is why you'll often see resurrection debates drift into discussions about Hume's writings on miracles and stuff like that- because miracles are a philosophical and worldview issue, not a historical one. We can say that the historical events surrounding a miracle are generally accepted by all and/or most historians (as is the case, for example with the resurrection) but this is not the same as saying that historical investigation PROVES the event.

Fractelle, your explanation is a very poor explanation of half of the two events. Once you've extended your explanation to account for all the historical data (ie: The appearances as well), then I'll show how your explanation seems historically implausible.
Posted by Trav, Friday, 24 April 2009 1:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav

You claimed that because Jesus' corpse went missing, that proved he reanimated:

"For me personally, I've never actually heard anyone give any other plausible explanation for the established historical events of the empty tomb and the disciples belief in post mortem appearances of Jesus."

Your logic is questionable at best and completely wrong at worst.

The most rational conclusion anyone can make is that Jesus' body was removed by persons unknown.

As for your last post, all I can say for it is that it is an excellent example of deliberate obfuscation, nonsense and evasion.

I do not believe in resurrections because there is no evidence it can happen. However, I do believe that humans are capable of removing a corpse from whence it was laid to rest.

As for the claims that disciples saw him walking about after the event of his death. Not one of the claims were made by persons present at that time, but were rather an addition made 50 years later in order to convince that Jesus was more than human, or less than human, or not even human at all depending on how you want to look at the entire father, son and holy spirit triad.

I stand by the fact that the most likely explanation (that JC was removed from the tomb by living humans) is the correct explanation. You cannot prove otherwise. You can believe in resurrections and easter bunnies for all I care, but you cannot attempt to force your beliefs on others as you are attempting to do here.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 24 April 2009 2:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, before I carry on I'll just mention that I won't be replying to you anymore if you continue making unsubstantiated personal claims such as this:

"you cannot attempt to force your beliefs on others as you are attempting to do here".

That comment was a red flag for me, because no reasonable person could possibly even come near to drawing the conclusion that I've been forcing anything on anyone here. The mere fact that you've suggested it is almost enough evidence to make me ignore your postings and use my valuable time in another way. Please, no more comments like that- they don't help you, me, or this discussion.

Now,back to our discussion. Your closing comment was this:

"I stand by the fact that the most likely explanation (that JC was removed from the tomb by living humans) is the correct explanation. You cannot prove otherwise"

Correct, I cannot prove anything and neither can you, we can only go by the balance of probabilities.

The tomb had a centurion guard in front of it, which was consistent with practices of the time. How likely is it that someone would be able to remove the body, in those circumstances? Not very likely at all.

Secondly, I claimed that "I've never actually heard anyone give any other plausible explanation for the established historical events of the empty tomb and the disciples belief in post mortem appearances of Jesus." As I said before, you've only attempted to explain the empty tomb, and you haven't attempted any explanation for the post mortem appearances. Therefore at this stage, you haven't actually put forward a full explanation at all.
Posted by Trav, Friday, 24 April 2009 3:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav

You say the tomb had a guard and this was “consistent with practices of the time”. What evidence do you have for this? It seems to me highly unlikely that Romans would bother guarding dead people. Only Matthew’s gospel mentions guards, and many scholars assume this was added by the author to answer later critics making the same accusation as Fractelle – namely, that the body was stolen.

You say that both resurrection and the stolen body are theories that cannot be proven but must be resolved on the basis of probabilities. I agree, but Fracetelle’s challenge remains. Which is more probable – that a corpse came back to life, or that the body was removed by humans? Or any of the other non-miraculous theories (the body never left the tomb, they went to the wrong tomb, Jesus never actually died…)

The post-resurrection appearances are similarly problematic. As Peter Sellick’s article discusses today, there is a strangeness about the post-resurrection accounts. At the very least, these were no simple encounters with an ordinary person. The subjective, non-historical explanation is to my mind more plausible than literal encounters with a resuscitated corpse.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 24 April 2009 4:39:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trav, it is hardly fractelle's burden to "put forward a full explanation" of 2000 year old heresay reports of an extremely unlikely event.

the real question is, why are you so willing to believe? why do you care so much?
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 26 April 2009 11:14:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav

You are demanding I believe your beliefs - that Jesus was resurrected due to divine powers and that this proves Christianity. If this is not prosetylising, I don't know what is.

You are basically saying I should not express an opinion that you take offense at. Please note that this is a forum, not your home, and I am free to present a rational explanation for the disappearance of a corpse from a tomb.

Therefore, if Jesus did exist and was crucified and his body placed in a tomb, then the body disappeared, someone had to have removed it.

Or Jesus was a zombie.

Cheers
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 26 April 2009 2:36:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You speak of the post-resurrection accounts as not being simple encounters with an ordinary person. This is true. No Christian believes Jesus to be an ordinary person.

Also, I’m not sure why we are discussing a resuscitated corpse. Christians believe that Jesus body was resurrected. This is a bit different from resuscitated. Christians believe Jesus overcame death once and for all. Not a revival or reheat of an unhealthy or expired body, but a total remodelling; an insight into the new world to come. Jesus' body was raised to a state of immortality.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 26 April 2009 2:56:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's potentially dangerous stuff, Dan.

>>Christians believe Jesus overcame death once and for all. Not a revival or reheat of an unhealthy or expired body, but a total remodelling; an insight into the new world to come. Jesus' body was raised to a state of immortality.<<

If you move the resurrection story too far from our reality, you devalue what - I assume - is the central purpose of the Jesus narrative.

It puts the entire "died for our sins" bit into a different light completely, if the entire process was just an exercise in remodelling.

I can see your dilemma, though. Keep it too close to our own human experiences, and you lose crdibility. Move it too far into the realms of "it's magic, just have faith", and the humanity that you need to attach to Jesus himsef, begins to look increasingly suspect
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 26 April 2009 5:22:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"No Christian believes Jesus to be an ordinary person."

"Christians believe Jesus overcame death once and for all. "

so, i guess my christian friends aren't really christians. thanks, dan. i'll let 'em know.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 26 April 2009 7:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
I would encourage you to chat to your Christian friends about theology. However, they might be curious about your motivation. They may wonder why you care so much.

Pericles,
I would say that the Gospel is potentially pretty dangerous stuff. At least, the Romans thought so. They had its adherence listed as a criminal offence for its first few hundred years.

I can appreciate the sentiments of your post. The appeal of Jesus’ character does partly lie in the ordinary human side of his life, such as his being born into a poor family, into a minority ethnicity, and facing similar hardships, temptations, and limitations as other men, etc.

However, we cannot get away from Jesus being anything but ordinary in other ways. Standard Christian teaching within the Gospels explains that he claimed a unique relationship with God. Many of those who were close to him recognised this from his words and his deeds. This includes the core of Christian teaching, that Jesus’ main task was to die in Jerusalem, and in so doing, in ways we don’t fully comprehend, he was “making all things new” (to quote a line from the movie The Passion of Christ).

There is a miraculous component to the Gospel. There is no such thing as a ‘miracle free’ Christian God. It was he who created the world. Raising Jesus from the dead is not an enormous miracle to perform or accept in comparison to that of creating the world. Recreating (I used the term remodelling) of the world is also part and parcel of the rest of the story, its hope and fulfilment.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 27 April 2009 1:05:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rhian, the other problem with the emptied tomb idea is that it's implausible that anyone would've done it.

A. If the disciples did it, why on earth would they then proceed to make up a resurrection myth and get themselved tortured and martyred over it?

B. If anyone opposing Jesus did it, then why didn't they produce the body as soon as Jesus followers started announcing the resurrection?

So either way, that scenario is highly implausible. Which, of course, is why not many historians take it very seriously.

Fractelle seriously, enough of this already! Show me where I've "demanded you believe my beliefs", or "forced my beliefs" onto you. It's simple Fractelle, either quote me, and show me where I've done this, or stop making the accusations! Put up or shut up.
Posted by Trav, Monday, 27 April 2009 9:57:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an amused onlooker in all this, I'd say you were missing an important trend, Trav.

First Sells, in his remarks on the resurrection...

"...the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an event that may be observed and examined so as to come to a conclusion about its reality or not, but rather is based on the subjective"

...and now Dan the Meringue:

>>the core of Christian teaching, that Jesus’ main task was to die in Jerusalem, and in so doing, in ways we don’t fully comprehend, he was “making all things new”<<

It would appear that the fashionable Christian is taking the Gospels in a strictly non-literal manner.

Thus freeing themselves from the need to explain anything in terms that are distinguishable in any way from magic. It must be a good feeling. Saves a lot of needless argument over what the word "dead" means, and so on.

So, get with it, Trav.

You too can be a Christian fashionista. No need for anything except a belief in magic.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 27 April 2009 10:21:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav

You are ordering me on how I should respond to you on this forum, for example:

"Please, no more comments like that- they don't help you, me, or this discussion."

I hold a different opinion, I see your inability to consider anything other than a literal interpretation of the bible as absurd. That you continue to attempt claim that corporeal resurrection as a plausible explanation demeans your credibility and appears to be proselytising.

"Put up or shut up"

No explanation needed. You are clearly ordering me about.

Back on topic.

If Jesus is not human or more than human as some have claimed. Then the only explanation for his presence on our planet is that he is a life form from another world far superior to our own. I agree this is almost as far fetched as resurrection, but if true, leads me to ask, why should we worship aliens? And conversely why do aliens want to be worshiped? Sounds very imperialistic to me.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 27 April 2009 10:37:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your satire would be more enjoyable, Pericles, if you were accurately describing the views of others.

Those two quotes you just posted actually have nothing to do with literal or non literal.

"Based on the subjective?" Of course. One needs to subjectively interpret the evidence to come to a conclusion on this.

"Doing so in ways we don't comprehend?" Again, of course. I wouldn't expect to comprehend how God raised Jesus from the dead. Again, nothing to do with literal vs non literal.

Anyway, the gospels make it perfectly clear that these are historical events they're purporting to record. Check out the start of Luke's gospel, for example.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he commented that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. That's why this is important for a Christian.
Posted by Trav, Monday, 27 April 2009 10:40:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
but dan, i thought we'd just decided my christian friends weren't christian after all, degrees in theology notwithstanding. oh well, i'll go tell them they're back in the fold.

and they know full well my motivation. i am intrigued how otherwise rational people can believe nonsense, and can plead so specially in order to justify their beliefs.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 27 April 2009 12:36:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy stories give joy and excitement to many children. These myths are harmless to children knowing that by their middle-primary school years they’ll realise the absurdity and untenability of their beliefs.

However, accepting beliefs in miracles and literal interpretations of Biblical stories are categorically different. Religious teaching, stamped with the persuasive imprimatur of our churches, schools, families and social customs inhibit the questioning the veracity of Biblical teachings which can be false and dangerous in that unscientific assertions and principles of behaviour and ethics are accepted without question. This is akin to finding life’s answers hiding in astrology, clairvoyance, quack medicines or any set of rules developed without the scientific process of hypothesising and testing. Quoting from the scriptures to prove the truth of miracles merely begs the question. It’s the scriptures themselves that cannot withstand the scientific process. Religious education is about ‘faith and belief’, not ‘scientific knowledge’. ‘Intelligent Design’ is the former: ‘Theory of Evolution’ is the latter. Despite the use of the word ‘theory’, evolution is continually being scrutinised and verified scientifically; but not so with religion.

An example: the comparative study of languages reveals how diverse and interconnected human races have become. But in my role as a teacher I have never hesitated in explaining that differences in race and language were not a result of God’s ‘Tower Of Babel’. Babel is a good yarn and readily accepted as fact by those not treading the path of education.

‘Religious Education’ is oxymoronic. While ‘education’ encourages the processes of enquiry, scepticism, hypothesising, testing and learning as a valuable end-in-itself, ‘religious education’ tends towards ‘training’ or ‘brainwashing’ with pre-packaged answers and doctrines of correct behaviours and morals.

Phil’s right. Religion is not doing justice to the process of education. Miracles belong in the light-hearted good-yarn basket along with Santa. Religious training can only be exposed to those able understand the fantasy of the Biblical metaphors and knowing that the stories of miracles is merely a sham to keep the troops in order.
Posted by Bronhill1, Monday, 27 April 2009 2:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, reading this and a couple of other contributions, I must wonder who is proselytizing here. I can try to explain my world-view to those interested, however denigrating other world views by calling them irrational, not suited to be educated into, etc. is another thing.

I do not see trav saying “Education without religion is oxymoronic. While ‘education’ encourages the processes of enquiry, scepticism, hypothesising, testing and learning as a valuable end-in-itself, ‘anti-religious education’ tends towards ‘training’ or ‘brainwashing’ with pre-packaged answers ... humanist education attacking religion is not doing justice to the process of education.“
Posted by George, Monday, 27 April 2009 7:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
When you say ‘we’, I’d prefer it if you just said ‘I’. Please, don’t include me in your decision making. First you want to tell your friends they’re not Christians. Now you want them back in the fold. On what basis are you making such judgements? And why would your Christian friends take theological advice from an atheist?

Fractelle,
No Christian is asking you to worship aliens. The word alien implies unfamiliar or foreigner. The creator of the world is anything but unfamiliar with or foreign to it.

Pericles (more than an onlooker),
You seem to suggest that my quote shares something with the quote from Sells but I don’t see what. (I’m also not sure if you finished Sell’s sentence, which makes grasping it tougher.)

Fashionable or non-fashionable, nobody takes or ever took the Gospels in a strictly literal manner. Anyone who’s read them knows that they contain different amounts of history, prophecy, parable, metaphor, hyperbole, poetry, etc. This is not to say that these grammatical classes or the overall meaning is difficult to discern. The death and resurrection of Jesus, being the central focus of the four Gospels, can in no way be interpreted as allegory or myth, at least not within the clear intention of the authors.

Bronhill1,
You claim good education encourages scepticism. Are we allowed to be sceptical about evolution?

Last year Ben Stein produced a movie showing how any scepticism towards evolution in many academic institutions is not tolerated. Instead we have only rigid orthodoxy. Universities were once the bastions of free speech. He asks, “Why do we allow, even celebrate, dissent in every other area of society, but not here?”

You’ve said that you’ve explained to students that differences in race and language were not a result of the Tower Of Babel. I am sceptical. Can you now explain your reasoning to me. How do you know this for certain?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 27 April 2009 11:24:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bronhill1...[claiming to be a teacher]..is likely teaching your kids<<..Despite the use of the word‘theory’,..evolution is continually being scrutinised and verified scientifically;..but not so with religion.>>oh dear what are we doing here lol,..if this debate isnt scruiteny then what is?

>>An example:the comparative study of languages reveals how diverse and interconnected human races have become.>>wow thats scruitiny and verifying..lol,it isnt even a logical comparison[diverse yet interconected sounds like a buzz word parroted out unthinkingly

[were also mixing races with languages,so were talking about scatterd[diverse]..first people language..[that arnt as interconnected as the interconected races in your small town are

<<I have never hesitated in explaining that differences in race and language were not a result of God’s..‘Tower Of Babel’>>oh dear''teacher''..the story reveals men built it NOT GOD..[how does your logic [lol]..deem it gods tower,mindless parroting bias comes to mind

<<..readily accepted as fact by those not treading the path of education.>>you clearly havnt sat in on any real religious debates..lol

<<While‘education’encourages the processes of enquiry,scepticism, hypothesising,testing and learning as a valuable>>..what poppy cock, heard of peer presure[questioning evolution gets you a fail mark[instantly]because you mindless parrots think it science

[forgetting its really theory]...faith based peer‘brainwashing’with pre-packaged answers and doctrines of correct behaviours and morals...describes the current education..precicly..[if its not in the teachers edition DONT TEACH it]

<<knowing that the stories of miracles is merely a sham>>begins by revealing the other shams..[evolution of species..[NOT GENUS]...validate evolution of genus,

dont teach kids that its science if its not faulsifyable science/fact
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305
havnt seen you at the current debate
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2679&page=0
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 12:03:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh for god's sake. dan, don't be so obtuse.

you made universal statements about what "christians" believe. i was simply pointing out that my friends, who regard themselves as christians, don't satisfy your criteria.

i don't care who calls themselves "christian". it's your club, their club, not mine. but maybe you can stop with the silly universals.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 12:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, I'm unsure how using verbatim quotes could fail in "accurately describing the views of others".

>>Your satire would be more enjoyable, Pericles, if you were accurately describing the views of others. Those two quotes you just posted actually have nothing to do with literal or non literal.<<

It certainly appeared to me that Sells was advocating a non-literal interpretation when he advised that "...the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an event that may be observed and examined so as to come to a conclusion about its reality or not"

Surely, if you were to form a view that the description of biblical events is allegorical, that would firmly preclude a literal interpretation.

Dan was heading in much the same direction with his "in ways we don't comprehend". Presumably, if they are beyond our understanding, that automatically rules out any literal interpretation.

Or perhaps we differ on the definition of "literal interpretation"? In my language, that means "it happened exactly as it was written".

>>Paul said it best when he commented that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, our faith is in vain<<

Yep. But as I understand it, both Sells and Dan are giving you permission to believe, but not to question too deeply. Which is a fair enough description of having faith, I guess.

Here's Dan again.

>>Fashionable or non-fashionable, nobody takes or ever took the Gospels in a strictly literal manner.<<

Nobody? Ever?

Are you really sure about that, Dan?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43957

"...most Americans – 63 percent – believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God."

That's from 2005. This century. This decade, in fact.

Fortunately they have people like Sells and yourself to put them right, don't they.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 9:42:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fractelle, I asked for quotes where I'd "demanded" that you "believe my beliefs", or where I was "forcing my beliefs on you", which was your original accusation against me. I also said I wouldn't bother replying anymore if you keep making accusations like that.

Since then, all you've done is post two quotes where I previously asked you to justify the SAME accusation. So, it's been established that you can't justify your claim, and we both know why that is- there are no quotes, because I never "forced my beliefs" on you at all. You're just talking bullocks, and childish bullocks at that. Therefore, I think it's best if I ignore you from now on, as I previously suggested might be the case. I'm only interested in discussing with people who want to have a rational discussion. And I'm definitely NOT interested in discussing anything with those who only want to continually repeat personal accusations against me without any justification. My time's too valuable to waste on that.

Now, back to the topic at hand!

Pericles, mass generalisations do not help anyone. No one takes the whole bible literally or the whole bible metaphorically. The debate is over which bits are literal and which bits are metaphorical. The gospels are clearly literal- their genre is hellenistic biography to be more precise- and Dan agreed when he said: "The death and resurrection of Jesus, being the central focus of the four Gospels, can in no way be interpreted as allegory or myth, at least not within the clear intention of the authors."
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 5:23:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I absolutely agree, Trav.

>>Pericles, mass generalisations do not help anyone<<

So let's both try to avoid them, shall we?

>>No one takes the whole bible literally or the whole bible metaphorically. <<

Dear me. It looks as though we have fallen at the first fence.

Almost any sentence you can think of that starts "No-one does this or that" is going to finish up as a generalization.

No matter, let's forge ahead.

>>The gospels are clearly literal<<

Oh. How do I put this?

Trav, this just isn't going to work out. But please - it's not you, it's me.

Water into wine. Distance healing. "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk". Fishing in Gennesaret. "Commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him". Mass healing in Capernaum. That leper. That guy with palsy. That shrivelled hand. Lazarus... the list goes on.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/app_a.html

http://musicbysunset.com/Miracles%20with%20Parallel%20Gospel%20Accounts.htm

Now, can I just ask whether these are the stories that you would like us to accept as "clearly literal?".

The first of these links actually "counts" the number of witnesses who were there at the time. Cute.

But we were talking of the resurrection.

To quote my favourite atheist, "It is interesting that there are no accounts of the resurrection in the Bible. No one saw what happened in the darkness of the tomb on the third day."

Oh, sorry. That was Peter Sellick.

So it would appear that we are left with an extremely bizarre position. To an atheist, anyway.

The central theme of Christianity - "the death and resurrection of Jesus, being the central focus of the four Gospels" which, as Dan tells us, "can in no way be interpreted as allegory or myth", actually has no narrative support in those same Gospels.

The good part of that, of course Trav, is that because it doesn't appear in the Gospels, you don't have to decide whether to take it literally or not.

Handy, I'd say.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 7:04:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I'm going to make some more of those mass generalisations that I warned against. How hypocritical of me. I'm going to assume you're a footy fan. So consider this. You're watching the game. Nick Riewoldt takes a spectacular mark from 20m out, dead in front of goal. He walks back and prepares to take a short run up. He starts running toward goal, begins the kicking motion, drops the ball into midair....but you blink. You miss the moment of contact! As your eyes open, you see the ball sail through the goals.

Question: In this imaginary scenario, did you see Nick Riewoldt kick a goal?

Using your logic, I guess not!
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 7:30:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
When discussing the merit of Christian beliefs, it is appropriate to first establish exactly what Christians believe.

I generalise without hesitation or reservation that standard Christian belief is that Jesus was more than an ordinary man, and that he rose from the dead. For thousands of years, Catholics, Orthodox, and more recently Protestant Christians and even JWs refer to Jesus as the Son of God and Risen Saviour.

These beliefs are found throughout the New Testament. If your friends, who have theological degrees, deny all such Biblical teaching, I would say they are rather unusual Christians, but more likely you’re mishearing them. Perhaps you should let them speak for themselves.

Trav,
I agree with your analogy.

Pericles seems to say that since no witness saw the body come to life in the cool of the tomb, then it probably didn’t happen. This is a bit like saying since no one was outside of the Apollo spacecraft in the coldness of space watching it on its way back from the moon, then that was probably a hoax. Or maybe since no one saw me put the garbage out in the cool of this morning then that couldn’t have happened either.

Pericles’ mystifying argument probably arises from a misunderstanding of what Sells was saying (not surprising, as Sells is pretty hard to discipher).

Pericles,
Scripture, in fact all literature, from reading the back of the corn flakes packet to higher forms, must be interpreted. Fairly often the literal view is not the intended meaning.

Surveys also must be interpreted. When 63% of Americans claim that the Bible is literally true, I don’t think that they're referring to all of it. When Jesus calls James and John ‘Sons of Thunder’, do they believe that lightening and thunder got married and had children? For the parable of the Good Samaritan, few believe that there was actually a man taking a trip down the road, was attacked by robbers and rescued by a Samaritan. It is clear when Jesus was teaching using parables.

However, I think you’re intelligent enough to understand these distinctions.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 2:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George
You’d have to agree that my comment shows clearly that I’m no proselyte!

Thanks for your comment. I look forward to discussing your ‘world-view’. If you need to go over your 350 words I’d welcome you emailing me: gregnewt@bigpond.com.

I was commenting on Phil Dye’s article on “Easter Miracles”. As I’m new to this National Forum I hadn’t found my way to Travis’ original comment until now, however, I understand your point. While I’d prefer to to be called an educator rather than a humanist educator I’d still make the point that the process of education, which includes the scientific process, is incompatible with the teaching of religion. Similarly, while we can debate the pro’s and cons of various ‘world-views’, I suspect that only one can be true.

Dan Merengue
Of course we can be sceptical about evolution. Examining and testing repeatedly any of the tenets of evolution or any other aspect of our body of knowledge is exactly what science does. Good science relies entirely upon scientists being sceptical.

One Under God
Are you for real or just taking the piss? Your vile vitriol gives me the impression that you can only win debates by attacking the man. You’re right about the Tower Of Babel but it was God who stopped the extensions, (a small point, but then aren’t they all?).
Posted by Bronhill1, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 2:52:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav, that's just silly.

>>In this imaginary scenario, did you see Nick Riewoldt kick a goal? Using your logic, I guess not!<<

Since the goal depended on i) contact with the boot and ii) the ball crossing the line between the uprights, I'm happy to take the field umpire's verdict on the first, and the evidence of my own eyes on the second.

And Dan, your analogies are pretty far-fetched too.

>>Pericles seems to say that since no witness saw the body come to life in the cool of the tomb, then it probably didn’t happen... [his] argument probably arises from a misunderstanding of what Sells was saying<<

So what was it that I misunderstood in Sells' position? It looked pretty straightforward to me - there is no biblical support for the resurrection itself.

Is there?

>>Scripture, in fact all literature, from reading the back of the corn flakes packet to higher forms, must be interpreted.<<

I take this as agreement with my position, that the Gospels are not a reliable historical record of events.

Did you get that Trav?

My understanding from all this is that every individual is free to choose which parts of the Gospels they wish to take literally, and which may be viewed as allegorical.

Given the entirely voluntary nature of religious belief, this would seem an admirable trait, allowing both you and Trav to hold diametrically opposing views, yet still be Christians.

But this is an entirely separate proposition to addressing my questions on the flimsy historicity of the same Gospels.

After all your puff and bluster, there are still no eyewitness accounts of all those miracles, or indeed of the resurrection.

It is entirely reasonable for you to base your faith on belief that it all did, in fact happen - either in reality or allegorically - but unreasonable for you to scoff at my disbelief, or pretend that there is no yawning gulf between alleged acts and alleged recording of alleged acts.

Unlike Nick Riewoldt's kick.

Which, if necessary, I could review on the video playback.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 11:53:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

Although I haven't personally witnessed Nick Riewoldt kick a goal this year (which is very bad and I apologise), there is ample evidence that people can kick footballs. Therefore I believe that the golden boy did indeed kick a goal, go Saints! Hopefully St Kilda has not peaked early.

BTW zero evidence for resurrections. However, it is possible that Jesus could kick a goatskin, willing to concede to that.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 12:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronhill1,
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was reacting to trav being accused of proselytizing (not by you), just because he stated and tried to explain the reasons for his beliefs, and used your contribution only to make my point.

>> my comment shows clearly that I’m no proselyte<<

Well, I do not know how else to interpret your statement that "only one (world-view) can be true". This is exactly how Christian missionaries were justifying their urge to proselytize, convert "heathens", in past centuries. Of course, instead of believing that "the scientific process (of education), is incompatible with the teaching of religion" they believed that the teachings of their Church were incompatible with other perspectives, including science-inspired ones that they could not understand, hence deemed incompatible with what they were supposed to teach.

Today there are many of us, theists or atheists, who, of course, have their own world-view, their own beliefs about what is the ultimate “truth”, however, we do not try to force them on others, even implicitly, by a priori proclaiming world-views we do not agree with (or do not understand) as inferior in whatever sense, as less true, less rational, less moral or e.g. incompatible with the findings of contemporary science. There are many world-views compatible with Christianity, from the very naive to the very sophisticated. The same with world-views compatile with atheism.

Of course, I’m not saying that they are all equally true: I only a believe that there is an “absolute truth“ and we all have some insights into it, some better some worse, some inspired by science, some by religion, some by both as in my case.

I hope you do not need a list of e.g. Christian scientists who did not find their profession incompatible with their faith. Only a naive interpretation of science (naive philosophy of science) is incompatible with any interpretation of Christian beliefs (and vice versa).

Thank you for your email address and your invitation. If you are interested in my attempts to explain my world-view, you can look at my contributions on this OLO (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=1953&show=history).
Posted by George, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 7:22:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter the Believer,

The same British Empire that quashed China in the Opium Wars of the nineteenth century. Britain interfered in extreme measure in China's internal affairs, to address her trade imbalance, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.

In WWII, Germany had to deal with a mad leadership who would not listen to its generals, it was fighting on two fronts and as (anothter madman) Stalin expressed it, Germany faced the cold of General "Winter" in Russia. Several of Germany's best physicists left Germany before WWII started. (Ditto Italy's mathematicians)

Britain declared war on Germany with view of freeing German occupied Poland. At WWII's end, Poland sadly fell into the evil hands of the Russian Communists. Under Russia, Poland's fate was tragic.

George,

I appreciate your mature mind and balanced input to OLO.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 8:37:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George
Thanks George. I will check out your other contributions and stay in contact.
I also work in a band and will be away from home for a few days. If I can’t get access to a laptop I’ll get back to you next week sometime, either on this site or the other.
Cheers Greg
Posted by Bronhill1, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 10:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want, is a statement of fact from the 23rd Psalm. No matter what the world has thrown against me, from evil pagan Judges and Magistrates to thieving Roman Catholic businessmen, the system in Australia is designed to stop people being absolutely so desperate that they kill each other. It would be a miracle for every homeless person if the Judges and Magistrates of Australia were Christians, and the courts of Australia were restored to their Christian roots and performed their functions as Christians, instead of acting as pagan gods, in a godbothered country.

We have plenty of opportunities for miracles, and currently there are 100,000 homeless people according to the latest figures freezing their lives away sleeping rough in the cities of Australia. The only reason they are still living rough, is that Australia lets lawyers sit in Parliament and they serve themselves. Repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and watch the miracles.

Lawyers were a curse on the population in Palestine 2000 years ago, and they are still a curse on the population in Australia in 2009. In Luke 11: 46 and 52 Jesus Christ singles them out. The miracles have stopped because lawyers stop them happening. The paganists have made themselves into gods, and it is no wonder Australia is suffering a failure of miracles. The first sentence in the Book of Ruth chronicles what happens when Judges rule.

These self serving highly superannuated burdens on society cost each and every one of us every day. They stop Miracles from happening. We need only one miracle to happen in Australia. We need KR to read his Bible, listen to his inner conscience, convince the former Slater and Gordon Lawyer who is his Deputy, that God wants to bless Australia and will do as asked in line 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 if Australia will listen to His teachings. Assassins killed three Family Court Judges, and lots of Judges die in office or soon after. Give us a jury trial miracle, and Christian freedom
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 30 April 2009 11:35:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[So what was it that I misunderstood in Sells' position? It looked pretty straightforward to me - there is no biblical support for the resurrection itself.]

It is not stated anywhere in the bible "Jesus turned his body from death back to life at this moment", but it is indeed stated that Jesus rose from the dead.

[>>Scripture, in fact all literature, from reading the back of the corn flakes packet to higher forms, must be interpreted.<<

I take this as agreement with my position, that the Gospels are not a reliable historical record of events.]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly here. Are you saying that the gospels are not a reliable historical record, because they need to be interpreted?

A company's audited yearly financial statements need to be interpreted. Does this mean they aren't historically reliable? Clearly not. That would be a non sequitur of an embarrassing order to claim that...!?

[After all your puff and bluster, there are still no eyewitness accounts of all those miracles, or indeed of the resurrection]

Indeed. However, the gospels, written beginning from 30 years later, tell of eyewitness accounts. The eyewitnesses themselves didnt write the texts, but they were consulted. Check out the beginning of Luke Chapter 1
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 30 April 2009 11:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You must be confusing me with soemone who has read the Gospels, Trav.

>>...but it is indeed stated that Jesus rose from the dead<<

If you have any disagreement, talk to Sells. He has, I suspect, read them through and through.

But from the little I know, to believe this you'd have to first believe in angels, and then that someone had actually spoken to an angel.

If you heard that story for the first time, however many years after the "event", what would you have thought? Oh yes, I can see that. Let me write it down.

>>A company's audited yearly financial statements need to be interpreted. Does this mean they aren't historically reliable?<<

Poor example.

The type of "interpretation" required for understanding the Gospels, apparently, is the ability to determine, consistently, what is fact and what is fable. As Dan says on this exact topic, "Fairly often the literal view is not the intended meaning"

In a set of accounts, it is rare for the auditor to say "fairly often, the numbers don't represent the true position".

>>The eyewitnesses themselves didnt write the texts, but they were consulted. Check out the beginning of Luke Chapter 1<<

As Mandy Rice-Davies once pointed out, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 30 April 2009 2:30:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[You must be confusing me with soemone who has read the Gospels, Trav.]

I could give you numerous places where this is stated in the gospels, and the bible. But I suggest you go read it for yourself :-).

[If you heard that story for the first time, however many years after the "event", what would you have thought? Oh yes, I can see that. Let me write it down.]

Why are you talking about me for? This was a different time and place.

In those days, people memorised everything, because 90% of people weren't literate. So their memories were impeccable. And these resurrection stories show up in numerous different sources all within the lifetimes of the eye witnesses. (Paul, Mark, Q, (probably M and L also), then into Matthew and Luke all within 40-50 years)

[The type of "interpretation" required for understanding the Gospels, apparently, is the ability to determine, consistently, what is fact and what is fable. As Dan says on this exact topic, "Fairly often the literal view is not the intended meaning"]

I believe Dan was talking about the bible, not the gospels there. Either way, Dan's already stated that the resurrection accounts were clearly intended as history. Go have a read, you'll see what I mean. The gospels are clearly intended as literal history, there is no doubt about that:

"Luke 1 (NIV)

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

[As Mandy Rice-Davies once pointed out, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?]

Indeed he would. But knowing what we know about Oral Traditions, early and multiple attestation, validation from hostile sources and the like, there's good reasons to take him seriously :-)
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 30 April 2009 3:41:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Re: Your comments on oral lore and literacy.

It depends on what means literate. The House of David have ministered to Gentiles ministered of the lower middle class.

Upper class people, before Constantine, generally would not become involved in a Jewish sect, because it would been socially undesirable Promotions and appointments would not have been available.

Slaves and rural workers were not living in areas, where donations supported the ministeries.

Typical middle class Gentiles, in Galilee, of Greek learning, would often have been literate in Greek and Aramaic. I am unsure the of Vulgar Latin and Koine Greek (rather than Attic) Greek in Galilee. The alleged Jesus' phaseolgy (trans.) does in places places, seem to suggest a sound education in Attic Greek; literacy from a mere wheelwright and general artisan.

Romans also inscribed monuments and the hoi ploi could read them.

There were two matters, however, of some import. Firstly, the stories were displaced in location, as well as time. Secondly, expensive scribes we used to produce presentable documents.

When choosing which documents to bind in a works, ancient publishers chose the most popular stories. Owing to the high cost to people on modest (not poverty) incomes their were favourites.

A bit off topic, so far as the very early Church is concerned:

Later after Constantine (?), the Romand Emperors had to appeal to the early Popes to stop hounding windows nor to remarry (Did Paul have something to say on ths?], so the Chutch could benefit fron bequests. The point is the widowis had money and the means to have been educated.

Word of mouth is import. It is personal and provides endorsement. Confabulations can be tailored to target audiences.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 30 April 2009 6:00:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronhill,
Welcome to the Forum.

In disagreement with one thing you said, as George often points out, I don’t see anything in the teaching of Christian religion that is incompatible with good science or good education. In fact, a few centuries ago, at a time when modern science was establishing itself, most educated people of the era had a solidly Christian worldview.

About the Tower of Babel, though I haven’t studied it deeply, I’ve read nothing substantial showing such an explanation is not a practical starting point for understanding the current diversity among languages and ethnicities. You claim my position is ‘uneducated’ but haven’t given any reason why. I trust you give more to your students.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 30 April 2009 9:25:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I like to draw parallels between the Apollo missions and Jesus’ mission. Jesus had 12 disciples; Apollo put 12 men on the moon. Some of these 12 men have since died. Soon all 12 will have died. There will come a time when all of the thousands of support personnel who worked closely with Apollo also will have died.

When all eye-witness testimony that men have walked on the moon is gone, then we will be in a similar situation to the witness of Jesus’ resurrection, where we’re reliant on historical records.

What was your misunderstanding of Sells? (As best I understand, for Sells can get pretty deep) when Sells says no one witnessed the resurrection, he’s saying that no one witnessed the process of change that occurred within the tomb. Sells would know that, according to the biblical accounts, plenty of people met with the resurrected Jesus. (This includes some of the Gospel writers and others among the New Testament writers.)

E.g. 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 “He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.”

Also, I don’t want to be interpreted as saying that the Gospels are not reliable historical records when indeed they are. They are amongst the most scrutinised documents in all of history. They report on historical events but are not written in the same style that we in our current traditions may recount chronological history.

You are free to accept or reject the Gospels but you are not free to interpret them however you like. They should be read on their merits, and interpreted consistent with the grammar and proper rules of interpretation pertaining to literature of this time.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 30 April 2009 9:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points on your "oral history" theory, Trav.

>>In those days, people memorised everything, because 90% of people weren't literate. So their memories were impeccable<<

Can you support this? Is there evidence that illiterate people have greater memory capacity? I would have thought, if this were so, you'd be able to provide something to back it up, since it is not particularly intuitive.

Then there's...

>>...these resurrection stories show up in numerous different sources all within the lifetimes of the eye witnesses. (Paul, Mark, Q, (probably M and L also), then into Matthew and Luke all within 40-50 years)<<

There's a fair amount of guesswork in there, Trav.

There were no eyewitness accounts. Only stories.

Anthropologist William Bascom observed in his "Four Functions of Folklore"

"Any story must be invented by some individual, and it is either accepted or rejected by the group because it does or does not fill a need."

He also argued that these stories "let people escape from repressions imposed upon them by society", "validate culture, justifying its rituals and institutions to those who perform and observe them" and can be "a means of applying social pressure and exercising social control."

All these appear ample justification for my forming the view that the events that turned Jesus into a historical figure were pure invention, after the event, by people with a vested interest in forming a religious cult.

I don't have the slightest problem with your believing the things that you do, Trav. I am aware that religion is important to many people, and I am happy that it gives them comfort. It is after all a very complex and confusing world we live in. As I mentioned before, I am merely an amused onlooker, watching different versions of Christian "truth" duke it out.

But please accept that your faith is based on the lack of evidence, not its abundance.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 1 May 2009 10:34:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Can you support this? Is there evidence that illiterate people have greater memory capacity? I would have thought, if this were so, you'd be able to provide something to back it up, since it is not particularly intuitive.]

I would've considered it very intuitive. Think about the who and the how, and it makes perfect sense. The earliest followers of Jesus were raised as Jews. Jews had to know the TANAKH. So, if they couldn't read or write, obviously they had to learn it orally. And that they did- learn it orally by rote learning, repetition and the like.

It's hard for us to comprehend, because we live in a culture with books, magazines, newspapers, the internet, iPhone's etc. Almost EVERYTHING is done in a literary context. Back then, EVERYTHING was learnt orally. The more you actually think about the consequences of that and how it would've worked, the more it makes sense.

I recently saw an interview with JDG Dunn who talked a lot about this. Another expert on this subject would be Richard Bauckham. So I'd suggest checking out those guys books and writings.

[There were no eyewitness accounts. Only stories.]

Some scholars consider that the early church tradition about the Gospel of John being written by the apostle John, an eyewitness, is entirely accurate. But this is not, AFAIK, a widely held position. It's a maybe. So stories, yes. But if we disregard all stories that aren't directly written by eyewitnesses to events, then we should throw out 99% of our ancient history and most of our modern history too. Let's not get over skeptical here.

[He also argued that these stories "let people escape from repressions imposed upon them by society", "validate culture, justifying its rituals and institutions to those who perform and observe them" and can be "a means of applying social pressure and exercising social control."

All these appear ample justification for my forming the view that the events that turned Jesus into a historical figure were pure invention, after the event, by people with a vested interest in forming a religious cult]
Posted by Trav, Friday, 1 May 2009 4:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The earliest followers were the ones whom were having social control exercised on them. Not the other way around. The early followers didn’t have much repressions imposed upon them when they were Jews, but once they started proclaiming the Jesus message, they were severely repressed.

How ironic. You're using this anthropologists’ statements as evidence that the story was "invented", but even a cursory overview of the facts about the early Christians shows that these statements really serve to show how UNLIKELY it is that the story was made up.

[But please accept that your faith is based on the lack of evidence, not its abundance.]

Pericles, stop patronizing me.

You insisted that the gospels shouldn't be read as a historical document, until Dan Merengue and myself advised you that the opposite is true. So then you admitted that you've never even actually read the gospels. Now you've tried using statements from an anthropologist, without any regard (ie: without even mentioning) the historical context in which you were applying the statements.

You claim that Jesus was a historical invention. But look, there is absolutely no evidence for that. There is not one university historian in the world who thinks Jesus never existed. Not one. Why? Because it's a totally implausible scenario which requires severely twisting a lot of the historical evidence, and ignoring the rest. Yet you insist on dogmatically stating that as your position, without providing any justification at all, (other than some statements from an anthropologist which, when analysed, do more to harm your case than to support it)

And now you're telling me it's MY position which is based on lack of evidence! Incredible. I'm flabbergasted that you would say that after making ignorant statements and then actually admitting your own ignorance on the subject!

Seriously, what's your email? Give me your email, we'll get in touch, and I'll buy you a DVD or a book or something so you can learn more about this. I'll make it easy; I'll get you something under 150 pages so you can whip through it in a hurry
Posted by Trav, Friday, 1 May 2009 4:57:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, Trav.

>>I recently saw an interview with JDG Dunn who talked a lot about this. Another expert on this subject would be Richard Bauckham. So I'd suggest checking out those guys books and writings.<<

Great, two theologians. But go on, provide the links anyway.

But why not at the same time provide links to articles that have actually tested your proposition: illiterate people have a greater memory capacity?

>>But if we disregard all stories that aren't directly written by eyewitnesses to events, then we should throw out 99% of our ancient history<<

Don't exaggerate. I'm merely suggesting we examine with some extra diligence those - many - stories that describe unnatural acts.

Isn't that the normal way of doing things? Stuff you can understand, you tend to accept quickly. Stuff that's truly weird, you look a little deeper.

Makes sense to me.

>>You're using this anthropologists’ statements as evidence that the story was "invented"<<

I'm simply passing on Bascom's considered view that fables, such as these, are invented for a purpose, and accepted by people for their own reasons. To me, they fit the proposition that a) someone invented the stories about the miracles and b) people accepted them to validate their beliefs.

I don't for one moment expect you to believe the same, nor would I suggest that you do. I am not trying to convince you of anything, simply pointing out that mine is a view that has its basis in reason.

>>You claim that Jesus was a historical invention... etc. etc ad naus.<<

Now that's just silly. Where have I ever suggested such a thing?

I have often pointed to the shaky nature of the evidence for those miracles, his virgin birth, plus the absence of evidence of a "resurrection". But I don't think you'll find that I deny that he might once have been alive.

>>I'll buy you a DVD or a book or something so you can learn more about this. I'll make it easy; I'll get you something under 150 pages so you can whip through it in a hurry<<

Patronising? Moi?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 1 May 2009 9:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia would have a real miracle, if lawyers were banned from government like they were for 498 years, and stopped from passing judgments on their fellow men and women, without due process of law. It would be a miracle and was that England avoided the very worst excesses visited on Continental Europe, and just because we accepted huge numbers of European settlers, we should not have to give up our way of life. They came here to be like us, and free not make us like they were back home.

Binding Queensland Statutes, which disqualify State Governments from exercising jurisdiction over Freehold land are two parts of, 18 Edward I St. 1 QUIA EMPTORES CC 1 and 3. [1290]. States like communist Russia, and until recently China and most of Europe’s colonies have never had these protections for private property and are poverty stricken. Lawyers would reduce us to the same level. This is a matter for the Commonwealth.

Property Law Act 1974 (Q) 20 Incidents of tenure on grant in fee simple
(1) All tenures created by the Crown upon any grant of an estate in fee simple made after the commencement of this Act shall be taken to be in free and common socage ( jurisdiction by 12 fellow freeholders) without any incident of tenure for the benefit of the Crown.
21 Alienation in fee simple
Land held of the Crown in fee simple may be assured in fee simple without licence and without fine and the person taking under the assurance shall hold the land of the Crown in the same manner as the land was held before the assurance took effect.

The miracle of a prosperous Australia is based upon the principles of the New Testament still enacted but ignored by State Governments. Blokes like Pericles probably think its alright for a Judge to rule. The only Christian court that can rule on Freehold land, is one with a jury in it, because Christians believe Almighty God owns everything, but has blessed us with good laws. The jury was the highest authority, but no longer
Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 2 May 2009 4:46:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy