The Forum > Article Comments > The resurrection of Jesus Christ > Comments
The resurrection of Jesus Christ : Comments
By Peter Sellick, published 24/4/2009The resurrection is central to the Christian faith: there've been many attempts to remove it as a problem for modern man so that belief is possible.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- ...
- 23
- 24
- 25
-
- All
reida, no evolutionary biologists that i know of claim the "random emergence" of a single cell, and the junkyard-aircraft analogy is tired and trite strawman nonsense. i hope hoyle and/or flew had something of more substance to offer, but i somehow doubt it.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 27 April 2009 1:21:18 PM
| |
bushbasher,
A shortcoming in the 'Age of Reason’, for some people, are that the various traits bound to creativity, intuition and the subconscious cannot be proven and therefore do not exist. Rigidly held prior conceptions and conceptual lacunae reduce thinking to the two-dimensional. Random events do in fact underlie a wide range of biological processes as diverse as genetic drift and molecular diffusion. But that is not my point and neither was it Hoyle’s or Flew’s. I suspect also, many find Sells difficult, if not, impossible because they have absolutely no theological framework or concept to go by. Posted by relda, Monday, 27 April 2009 1:50:33 PM
| |
reida, i can make little sense of your first paragraph. to the extent that i can make sense of it, it seems irrelevant.
to claim that random events "underlie" a biological process is quite different from claiming that it is the sum total of the process. whatever you (or hoyle) intended, that is the force of the plane-junkyard analogy. Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 27 April 2009 2:06:34 PM
| |
BB, it was actually meant to be an insult.
>>reida, i can make little sense of your first paragraph<< The point being made is that you are constrained to think in only two dimensions... >>Rigidly held prior conceptions and conceptual lacunae reduce thinking to the two-dimensional.<< That's you, by the way. There is also confirmation of my view of Sells' offerings. >>I suspect also, many find Sells difficult, if not, impossible because they have absolutely no theological framework or concept to go by<< This is code for "he can only talk to fellow theology graduates from his own faith". Which of course we have known all along. I'm a little puzzled by relda's dismissal of poor old Flew. >>He’s quite clear on his rejection of all alleged divine revelation, including the Bible, the Koran, and any other example you’d care to mention. He also continues to reject outright the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God’s existence<< So much for the atheist who came in from the cold. The sting in the tail was there, though. >>It may be convenient to believe in the total randomness of events but it seems to be increasingly illogical in continuing to pursue such a line.<< I think this is also supposed to be a snide remark aimed at us atheists. Apparently, the only alternative to believing in some form of supreme being is to believe that all events are totally random. If that's not an example of two-dimensional thinking, I don't know what is. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 27 April 2009 3:23:44 PM
| |
Correction of above: Even then, Mark, the earliest Nicaean gospel, does NOT really give a biography. That is about as far history will take us. - O.
Relda and bushbasher, 1. Infinite indetermancy exists at a quantum level. Probability is the inner shell of macro systems. 2. Scientists are exploring the mechanism of biological creation. What is needed,for life known to us, is that there is a cell wall to contain amino acids and that the cells replicate. Cell walls have been "created" in the lab. Crystals show some characteristics of organic life, i.e., replication. Study of the same is a work in progress. Regards, O. Posted by Oliver, Monday, 27 April 2009 3:27:46 PM
| |
Pericles,
It was not sarcasm, but a touch of truth, and it bit didn't it.... I am sorry if you were offended, but this is how others are reading you as well. I don't claim to be better than anyone else. You may disagree with my opinions, but if you intend to discuss in a valid manner, than it helps to make things clear what your saying. As for your personal sub-categories of evidence, these are still not defined? As for Roman evidence, I see it more plausible than no Roman would have recorded the Resurrection directly...How could they given Gospel accounts. Besides, if Roman guards fell asleep on duty near the tomb, they would have been put to death, and I doubt Pontius Pilate would have reported the case. I'd bet the Jews would have paraded Jesus body through the streets to disprove the Resurrection if the body was around, but they did not. Why not? Surely they would have gone all out for this approach. If so, explain St Paul, whose letters possibly predate some Gospels. More psychosis again? Would you have recorded it today? I doubt it. The secular media would have dropped it. I'll give you an example of how they work. Remember that Montana plane crash in the cemetery. It sort of died quickly as a story. You want to know why? Check this weblink... http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/646579835.html# Its a very tragic situation, and the family needs remembering, and prayers for those who can offer them I think. More objective reporting out the window. This is still my complaint against Atheists etc..today...Not intellectually honest anymore. As for Antony Flew, I am intrigued as to why an offhand comment should have such an effect? To close to the mark perhaps...Yes he was a more honest intellectual atheist than Dawkins and co. Maybe that's why I suppose... Posted by aga, Monday, 27 April 2009 3:52:00 PM
|