Rhian,
You say you don't believe in a bodily resurrection. If so, then what happened to Jesus' body? It did appear to be missing. It wasn't where it was laid. The New Testament claim is that he resurrected. This claim does seem to carry some physical aspect to it, which goes beyond him only spiritually appearing to his followers. For your understanding, is God capable of intervening in the physical world? Do you accept any of the other miracles described in the bible which involved God intervening in the natural world?

Banjo,
You sound very French. I've heard that the typical Frenchman thinks of himself as a Catholic atheist. I also like your next definition of yourself as simply "a very ordinary person". That sounds quite appealing, if I could borrow it for myself. I like to think of myself like that, but I feel I have to add the word 'believer'. It's what God has made me.

As for my temperament commanding me to say the odd derogatory remark about atheists from time to time, thanks for picking me up on that. Such as my last post when I described atheists with the word 'hypocrisy'. That was a bit strong in the context. I should have said having inconsistencies and blind spots, which are traits common perhaps to us all.

Banjo,
When I said that believing the gospels requires much faith, that was to say that one is being asked to believe in something very particular. One is asked to believe that a particular man, on a given date about 2,000 years ago, rose from the dead, an event which is quite astounding. And as I see Rhian as saying, it was not just a revivification, such as occurred with Lazarus or others, but rising to life in an unprecedented manner, a foreshadowing of a new kind of life which is to come (which would lead us into eschatological discussion areas.)

So the gospels require faith of a particular type, which is difficult. You presumably wouldn't believe something so out of this world without good reason.

Conversely, I don't think a general belief in God should be so hard to come by at all. I think most on the planet have some vague sense of God or leaning towards believing in a deity rather than none. I think that nature screams evidence for design, everywhere we look. I had a friend who used to continually talk about the amazing qualities found in a blade of grass. The sophistication inherent within grass to allow it to grow still outdoes human technologies by many orders. One scientist who was trying to examine or emulate the process of photosynthesis, for example, was surprised that we don't see series of miniature explosions occurring on the surface of a leaf.

In such line, I think WmTrevor's recent comment was interesting, "If god was other than an intangible concept there would be no necessary cause for the existence of apologists." To him I would say generally God does not need an apologist. The apologist is there only to explain a particular aspect or understanding of God. So I don't see the theist needing to be lumbered with the burden of proof more so than the atheist. As Don's article explains, atheists have their particular miracles to explain and defend, and aren't always doing too well at it.

Dan,

It sounds like you’re conflating scepticism with denialism.

<<But aren't sceptics supposed to have doubt planted in them?>

No, having it planted there implies it was put there by another party. Scepticism is a starting point and a methodology.

Scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process. It is a healthy, scientific approach to evaluating claims. Sceptics are willing to follow the evidence to where it leads. Denialists, on the other hand, have a position staked out in advance and sort through the evidence employing confirmation bias as they go. Denialism is mere gainsaying despite the evidence.

<<I think this is one of the main points of Don Batten's article. In this instance he is the sceptic.>>

No, he is a denialist. See above.

<<And he's asking us to be sceptical about five 'miracles' which atheists hold up claiming to have given a materialist explanation.>>

I already explained earlier that having an explanation (of any sort) is not a requirement of atheism. Atheism does not necessitate a belief in any of the claims that Don presented distortions of. Atheism is the default position. Even at its most developed, atheism is still only a rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence. There is nothing within atheism to necessitate any other belief.

Don has not addressed any so-called “miracles”, he attacked strawmen. There’s another fallacy we can add to his long list.

Thanks for the link to the PDF. I didn’t get very far because the first argument the creationists presented is already an easily debunked one. Neither the first law of thermodynamics, nor the second, are violated by the formation of the universe and evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Hi Banjo

Your definition of reality as “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it” means that love, hate, hope, despair, beauty, loneliness and most of the other important things in life are not “real”. If your daughter tells you she loves you, do you dismiss the proposition as not real because it is impossible to confirm independently of ideas concerning it?

Liturgy is what people do, not the doctrine that tries to define what it means. Many churches celebrate mass/Eucharist/Lord’s supper; only (some) Roman Catholics call in transubstantiation.

I see “faith seeking understanding” a little differently, too. The church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience. We do all three imperfectly, and in the context of our traditions, cultures and worldviews. Of course, if you don’t accept the reality of the experience, the descriptions can seem circular or self-serving.

Hi Dan

I don’t know what happened to Jesus’ body. Crossan suggests it would have remained on the cross for days and eventually been thrown into a midden: the most common fate of the bodies of crucified criminals. If it was buried in a tomb, it may still be there. Matthew’s Gospel, and possibly John, hints at a rumour that the body was stolen, and there were early Jewish stories to that effect.

I don’t believe God intervenes in the material world in the mechanistic and supernatural way you seem to describe, and I certainly don’t think biblical accounts of miracles constitute supernatural proof of the existence of God or of Christian claims about Jesus. John’s Gospel is especially scathing of faith based on miracles. Again, I understand the Gospels as trying to explain extraordinary phenomena in a culture where modern distinctions between natural and supernatural, observation and explanation did not exist. For example, illness was commonly perceived as a product of demonic influence, and healers routinely performed exorcisms and invoked divine power to cure the sick. The Gospels don’t present Jesus as unique in doing these things, only as especially good at it.

The Bible has the body taken down the first day & only after a few hours. I doubt very much if Joshua (Jesus) had died in that time. He would have been fairly beat up, by all accounts, but not enough to kill him. They were tough in those days. As I said previously the Spear to the lungs would have drained them & allowed him to breath again. Saving his life. The Astringent Wine Vinegar on a sponge would have revived him a bit. Kept the Heart going.

My bet it was a deal done with Pilot by Aramathera. Jesus,
As far as "Not being recognized by his followers." Either a disguise or disfigurement could account for that.

It is also said that Joshua (Jesus) also went to France, around Marseilles (Mary Magdalene ended up there. Reportedly had dementia & died in a cave) & He also reported in parts of England. (Mary his mother & John the Younger lived there.) Being a Buddhist Monk went back to India. His Grave is said to be in the Pakistani Highlands near the Afghan Boarder. In an old Buddhist Shrine. Remember he wore an unusual Red Robe that was one piece. What Tibetan Monks wear? Exactly.

Is Joshua's connection with India what led Philip to go there? It was around where Philip was murdered that it is reported that Jesus was a student of Hinduism before he fell foul of them & went to Northern India to study with the Buddhists.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« Your definition of reality as “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it” means that love, hate, hope, despair, beauty, loneliness and most of the other important things in life are not “real” »
.

That is the philosophical sense of the word “reality” as indicated by “Dictionary.com”. The OED definition of the word “real” is a little more explicit: “actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed”.

Perhaps this latter definition will reassure you that, provided they are not simply “imagined or supposed”, the various sentiments you mentioned may be real.

The point I was making in my previous post, of course, was that what you believe to be reality and present as such does not correspond to the universally accepted sense of the term. They are your personal religious beliefs – which, no doubt, are probably shared by many devout Christians such as yourself.
.

You also wrote :

« Liturgy is what people do, not the doctrine that tries to define what it means »

Quite so. I do not confuse liturgy and doctrine. I clearly indicated in my previous post that liturgy means “ritual” (i.e., what people do). But in your previous post, you wrote: « Christian liturgy … celebrates and symbolises a present reality ».

My comment on that was that Christian liturgy does not celebrate and symbolise “a present reality”. It celebrates and symbolises “a present religious doctrine”.

What you refer to as “reality” is not reality in the universally accepted sense of the term. It is “religious doctrine”.
.

You concluded :

« The church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience … Of course, if you don’t accept the reality of the experience, the descriptions can seem circular or self-serving »

The OED definition of “experience” is: “practical contact with and observation of facts or events”.

I have no problem accepting “the reality of the experience” provided the “church” has “practical contact with” the risen Christ, not just “imagined or supposed”.

.