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 > The same tired old arguments from the unbelievers > Comments

The same tired old arguments from the unbelievers : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 31/7/2007

The scientific critics of Christianity conclude that once it is agreed that the miracles cannot happen then Christianity loses all credibility.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 22
  13. 23
  14. 24
  15. All
To Remco,
God probably killed a lot more than that figure in the great flood alone, nearly everyone on the planet. Should we shake our fist at God, or do we try and make some kind of sense out of the death and suffering? Though at times severe, God is not flippant or insensitive to the pain of death. Jesus too, cried at gravesites while he himself suffered the worst of deaths
Posted by Mick V, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 9:13:40 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
FIRSTLY.. a warm welcome to all the apparently new contributors to OLO!

SECONDLY... Pete.. you really show your presuppositions here, and they are sad.

"The most extraordinary event of all is the raising of Jesus and you do not have to have a deep understanding of causality to know that this does not happen, dead men stay dead."

then.

"The stories carry the meaning even though we know that certain events could not have happened. On the one hand we know that Jesus must have had an earthly father, on the other hand the writer, of the virgin birth narrative, is telling us something about Jesus’ relation to God."

COMMENT from the Apostle Paul:

1Cor 15: 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

COMMENT from me:
Well gee golly gosh.. did we need Pete or similar 'theologians' to tell us this? (Christians_are_STUPID/deluded/strange/wierd/pitiable/add_name_of_choice_if_Christ_did_not_rise)

No, of course not, Paul was WAY ahead of them, and he was one who KNEW the 'risen' Christ personally....

So, I'm wondering who Sells means by the 'un' believers ? (Himself?)
Sorry Sells.. dead men DO rise, if God raises them and no amount of 'modern' scientific theologians can change that.

"One thing I know... once I was blind...but now I see" yep..it was pretty clear to that bloke. No magic, just the power of God, plain and simple.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 9:59:34 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
With this piece Sells targets "all the present day critics of Christianity".

But who are these critics, exactly?

Muslims? Dawkins? Me?

Things become a little clearer as his argument develops.

>>Part of the problem is that we are so influenced by the scientific world view that we find it difficult to imagine any other. But to understand the biblical mind we must try.<<

Understanding the biblical mind is not, I would suggest, as particularly pressing a task for "all the present day critics of Christianity" as it would be for a Christian wrestling with the inherent contradictions of his faith.

Perhaps that is what we are seeing here?

>>The scientific critics of Christianity conclude that once it is agreed that the miracles cannot happen then Christianity loses all credibility<<

This is an interesting observation. "Scientific critics" again. I wonder who they might be? I know I don't speak for anyone except myself, but among my concerns about Christianity, the science part is pretty small beer. Sure, I don't subscribe to the literal nature of the miracles, but that is but a tiny portion of my scepticism.

More and more this is sounding like an author whose faith is diminishing, and is trying to bolster it up by throwing a few grenades at the ideas that are starting to sound... well, kind of plausible, at least.

>>In order to see that this is so we must suspend our scientific critical faculty and listen to the texts on their terms. Alas this is something that the present day crop of critics are loath to do.”

Ah, so it is Dawkins and Hitchens we're talking to, is it?

Unfortunately, in order to spike their guns, Sells has had to take a position that says "don't worry about the miracles, it doesn't actually matter whether they actually happened or not".

Follow that path for long enough, Sells, and you will find that soon you will be sitting in the gallery with the rest of us, wondering why these strange religious folk insist on believing the unbelievable.

Best of luck with your journey.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:08:38 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
Boaz, I know that you are a great fan of Paul, but there is no need to exaggerate.

>>Paul was WAY ahead of them, and he was one who KNEW the 'risen' Christ personally<<

No, he didn't. There is absolutely no evidence that Saul met Jesus, let alone "knew him personally".

I am aware that Christians tend to use the word "know" very loosely, and indeed that you often profess to "know him personally" yourself.

But it is misleading to suggest, as you do here, that Paul's statements are first-hand evidence of the resurrection. But they do - as Sells clearly demonstrates - introduce one of the major contradictions that Christians are forced to accept.

As you yourself point out, Paul places the resurrection front and centre. Believe it in its literal entirety, or you cannot call yourself a Christian.

That is pretty strong stuff. But being the smart operator he was, Paul understood that if you can get them to swallow the big one, all the rest - the blind man, the leper, Lazarus and all that - are pretty small potatoes.

So we are left exactly where we were before. The first major Christian evangelist with a tough message to sell, with a single self-proclaimed event, the visitation along the road to Damascus, as the motivation for his work.

That may be "knowing the 'risen' Christ personally in your book, Boaz, but it really just another story, as Sells so eloquently describes.

"When I prepare the sermon I read the biblical texts “as if” they describe an actual event (and sometimes they do) even though that event is a material impossibility."

There ye go.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:35:06 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
Interesting that this thread itself seems to make my point for me: many of the Christians who have posted on this forum really do believe in the miracles, and believe they can happen if God says so. Thus, it is legitimate for other voices ("scientific" or otherwise) to seek to rebutt that position.

Rhian, appreciated your response. I thought it was sensible and useful. I wonder though whether you still have a religion once you remove the supernatural bits? Or do you have a philosophy? I guess that might just be a semantic point, if what you have helps you lead a better and happier life.

Anthony
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:59:45 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
A note for all pious people – a philosophical and psychological (as opposed to scientific) critique of religion:

Debates over reason, facticity, logic and evidence aside, what bothers me most about your chosen way of being is your total lack of intellectual honesty. What you demonstrate so profoundly in your various attempts to rationalise this (‘truth’) and legitimate that (set of values) is a fundamentalist and unapologetic ‘will to deception’.

“What deception?” you ask. Well, it begins with the psychologically inconvenient truth that we – homo sapiens – happen to be the only species on earth to have developed the capacity to become aware of the utter meaninglessness of this great big cosmic accident that we call existence. This, I couldn’t agree more, is a rather scary thought. For the brave, healthy and honest atheists amongst us, we simply face up to this truth and live by affirming all that life has to offer. But for the pious people, you turn your backs on life and seek a cowardly comfort through your stories of wish-fulfilment fantasy and anthropomorphic projections; rather like the poor old ostrich with its head in the sand.

Continued below>>…
Posted by LSH, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:07:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 22
  13. 23
  14. 24
  15. All

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