Author Topic: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?  (Read 2424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2407
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2014, 08:24:14 PM »
The Gospels, on the other hand, include "prophecies" placed in the mouth of Jesus, proclaiming that the Temple and the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans.  On the premise that it is more likely that the texts would be written after the events described, than that a man could foretell the future, the Gospels are dated after 70 C.E., with Mark as the first and the others appearing later.

I know that is false. The prophecy is written in the future tense, not past tense. One would expect the past tense if it was a fake. Why would they worship Jesus if they knew they were making up a prophecy? it makes no sense.

Take a gander at that verse. it says "There will be no stone left unturned."
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2014, 08:26:36 PM »
so why did God create asteroids.... Not in our lifetime but soon on a cosmic scale one of those space rocks will wipe out what followers your god has left( if any ),it's ok though because religion or human activity will probably kill humanity before that happens.

Face it you belong to a dying religion,you are here to try and justify your position,you fail miserably.

The religion is certainly not dying. This is what the Romans said in the 1st century. This is what they said in the Middle Ages. This is what they said in the 1700's. it's nothing but hot air.

I honestly thought the numbers would show Christianity is decreasing.  However, it appears that is not the case:

The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the world’s population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).

This apparent stability, however, masks a momentous shift. Although Europe and the Americas still are home to a majority of the world’s Christians (63%), that share is much lower than it was in 1910 (93%). And the proportion of Europeans and Americans who are Christian has dropped from 95% in 1910 to 76% in 2010 in Europe as a whole, and from 96% to 86% in the Americas as a whole

At the same time, Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today – unlike a century ago – is truly a global faith

Source:  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Surprised,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2014, 08:32:27 PM »
Why would they worship Jesus if they knew they were making up a prophecy? it makes no sense.

Jesus must have predicted it, because he would have known the future.
We don't know everything about Jesus, therefore some bits can be created to fill in the blanks.
A prophecy involving the fall of the temple, can be woven into some midrash in Isaiah.
Therefore insert what must have been true.
Hey presto: Jesus is greater than anyone else's God.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2014, 08:37:13 PM »
In any case, you are assuming that the motivations and theology of the person who inserted the prophecy into Mark are the same as your perspective of Jesus (that he needed to be believed, for you to be saved). The person who inserted the prophecy may have been in a bitter battle with a rival who was asserting some heretical thing that the insertion would refute.

Until you can actually show the lineage of how the gospels were written, and why in Greek, rhetorical question begging does not solve the problem. The gospel of Mark could also have been written in 50AD, and temple prophecy could have been inserted in 80AD. There can probably be no solution, just by analysing the text. A time machine would solve the problem.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 08:40:30 PM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2014, 09:05:36 PM »
Christianity today – unlike a century ago – is truly a global faith

From the way people treat each other worldwide, from our politics to our nationalism to our suspicion of anyone different, and from the view I grew up with, of how I was expected, as a Christian, to treat other people, it sure doesn't seem like it.
“I wanna go ice fishing on Europa, and see if something swims up to the camera lens and licks it.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2014, 09:43:07 PM »
Possibly you could make a case that Christianity is global, if there were 4 Christians positioned at certain points around the equator.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1250
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2014, 10:11:38 PM »
The prophecy is written in the future tense, not past tense. One would expect the past tense if it was a fake. Why would they worship Jesus if they knew they were making up a prophecy? it makes no sense.

Add Homonym pretty much covered this succinctly in posts #60 and #61.  Also: since when did "making sense" have anything to do with religion?  All those other religions you don't believe in--you'd have no problem with pointing and saying, "Ha!  That makes no sense!  Those guys are deluded!"  When someone points at something in your own religion that doesn't make sense, you fold your hands piously and say "God works in mysterious ways!"  Either way, religion isn't about making sense.  If it was, people would call it "science" or "philosophy."

Take a gander at that verse. it says "There will be no stone left unturned."

*Chuckle*  Actually, the phrase you're looking for is "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" (Mark 13:2). 


Oops.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2014, 10:15:23 PM »
The Gospels, on the other hand, include "prophecies" placed in the mouth of Jesus, proclaiming that the Temple and the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans.  On the premise that it is more likely that the texts would be written after the events described, than that a man could foretell the future, the Gospels are dated after 70 C.E., with Mark as the first and the others appearing later.

I know that is false. The prophecy is written in the future tense, not past tense. One would expect the past tense if it was a fake. Why would they worship Jesus if they knew they were making up a prophecy? it makes no sense.

Take a gander at that verse. it says "There will be no stone left unturned."

One would only expect the past tense if it was fake--and the author was a fucking idiot.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2014, 10:16:27 PM »
I honestly thought the numbers would show Christianity is decreasing.  However, it appears that is not the case:

The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the world’s population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).

This apparent stability, however, masks a momentous shift. Although Europe and the Americas still are home to a majority of the world’s Christians (63%), that share is much lower than it was in 1910 (93%). And the proportion of Europeans and Americans who are Christian has dropped from 95% in 1910 to 76% in 2010 in Europe as a whole, and from 96% to 86% in the Americas as a whole

At the same time, Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today – unlike a century ago – is truly a global faith

Source:  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Surprised,

OldChurchGuy

OldChurchGuy, I'm intrigued, those are interesting numbers. But what do you personally take away from the fact that the greatest spread of Christianity is in some of most poor, disadvantaged, and educationally starved parts of the world?

How would you compare this growth, for example, to the decline in places such as Europe and other developed countries?
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2014, 11:16:54 PM »
A lot of the growth in poor countries is in denominations that skeptic and his friends would not accept as true Christians, like Catholics and Mormons. You know, the groups that encourage large families. But if you need to show that Christianity has the numbers and is not dying out, skeptic will count in the Mormons, the JW's, the Pentecostals, the Amish, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Russian Orthodox if necessary. Demons or no.

And then he will turn around in the very next post and say that only like, 5-10% of the people who say they are Christians really are and the rest are liars, demon-led or faking.[1]While simultaneously claiming the largest number of adherents..... &)
 1. Not sure exactly what the point would be of faking Christianity unless you are a right-wing politician or a televangelist making bank.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1250
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2014, 12:34:07 AM »
Returning to the subject of the OP, it seems to me that the "Minimal Facts" approach rests on an inherent dishonesty.  The premise is that Christians can abandon the most grandiose claims of the Gospels--Herod's "massacre," Augustus' Empire-wide "census," Jesus' "ministry" of miracle-working in front of crowds of thousands, the mini-zombie apocalypse (some significant number of people who crawled out of their graves and entered a major metropolis swelled with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from all over the Roman Empire, many of them literate), a "great earthquake" (which would surely leave physical traces in structures built prior to that time), and the Sun and stars turning off for three hours--in order to withdraw to a more defensible citadel of a handful of "facts" they hope can be used to make a resurrection of Jesus seem plausible.

The alleged "facts" also happen to be the ones that would attract the least notice from outsiders: an "empty tomb" only a handful of people would know was "empty" (or even occupied by Jesus in the first place), and claims by Jesus' devoted followers to have "seen" him after his death.  IOW: "All the really BIG miracles in the Gospels?  We'll give you guys those as mythologizing or exaggerations or whatever, and make our stand around three ordinary events (a troublemaker got crucified by the Romans, a body was put in a tomb, a tiny cult of people who loved him said they saw him after death, sometimes in mystic visions) and one odd, but still not necessarily supernatural event (body turns up missing)." 

This is done with the hope that, if they can make the resurrection sound historically plausible, they can triumphantly shout, "Therefore, Christianity is true!," sally forth from their little redoubt and reclaim all that stuff they couldn't defend, and maybe go onward to snag Noah's Ark while they're at it.  The "concession" and retreat to the "minimal 'facts'" is a Lucy's Football.  They don't really mean it.

It's also self-refuting: if all those great big, grandiose miracles that would have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, if not the entire human population at the time[1] could have been false, allegorical, or whatever, then we have no reason to trust the honesty of the Gospel authors when it comes to the "resurrection."

And we're back to the fact that, whether there be gods or Sufficiently Advanced aliens, or mighty necromancers, or other powers capable of resurrecting dead people, they exhibit a remarkably consistent pattern of not doing so.  So much so that we have no reason to think that such powers are really there, just waiting to pick out some singular exception to the generalized principle that dead people don't come alive again.

Honest apologists should be willing to try and defend the whole territory of miraculous Gospel claims, rather than abandoning it in a tactical trick and hoping to snatch it all back again later.
 1. If the "darkness that covered the land" involved the Sun and stars shutting down temporarily rather than some kind of local obscuring of the sky over Jerusalem, it would have been noticed by everybody.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2407
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2014, 01:11:54 AM »
OldChurchGuy, I'm intrigued, those are interesting numbers. But what do you personally take away from the fact that the greatest spread of Christianity is in some of most poor, disadvantaged, and educationally starved parts of the world?

How would you compare this growth, for example, to the decline in places such as Europe and other developed countries?

I personally believe it is because when people have a comfortable life, they forget about God and give into material gains. When someone has nothing in their life, they are more likely to rely on God for guidance and give them hope. Funnily enough, it's the exact way that Jesus described in the Gospels.

if God was fake, you would expect people who prosper the most to give the most thanks to God and the ones who are poor to be atheists.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2407
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2014, 01:15:58 AM »
Returning to the subject of the OP, it seems to me that the "Minimal Facts" approach rests on an inherent dishonesty.  The premise is that Christians can abandon the most grandiose claims of the Gospels--Herod's "massacre," Augustus' Empire-wide "census," Jesus' "ministry" of miracle-working in front of crowds of thousands, the mini-zombie apocalypse (some significant number of people who crawled out of their graves and entered a major metropolis swelled with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from all over the Roman Empire, many of them literate), a "great earthquake" (which would surely leave physical traces in structures built prior to that time), and the Sun and stars turning off for three hours--in order to withdraw to a more defensible citadel of a handful of "facts" they hope can be used to make a resurrection of Jesus seem plausible.

The alleged "facts" also happen to be the ones that would attract the least notice from outsiders: an "empty tomb" only a handful of people would know was "empty" (or even occupied by Jesus in the first place), and claims by Jesus' devoted followers to have "seen" him after his death.  IOW: "All the really BIG miracles in the Gospels?  We'll give you guys those as mythologizing or exaggerations or whatever, and make our stand around three ordinary events (a troublemaker got crucified by the Romans, a body was put in a tomb, a tiny cult of people who loved him said they saw him after death, sometimes in mystic visions) and one odd, but still not necessarily supernatural event (body turns up missing)." 

This is done with the hope that, if they can make the resurrection sound historically plausible, they can triumphantly shout, "Therefore, Christianity is true!," sally forth from their little redoubt and reclaim all that stuff they couldn't defend, and maybe go onward to snag Noah's Ark while they're at it.  The "concession" and retreat to the "minimal 'facts'" is a Lucy's Football.  They don't really mean it.

It's also self-refuting: if all those great big, grandiose miracles that would have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, if not the entire human population at the time[1] could have been false, allegorical, or whatever, then we have no reason to trust the honesty of the Gospel authors when it comes to the "resurrection."

And we're back to the fact that, whether there be gods or Sufficiently Advanced aliens, or mighty necromancers, or other powers capable of resurrecting dead people, they exhibit a remarkably consistent pattern of not doing so.  So much so that we have no reason to think that such powers are really there, just waiting to pick out some singular exception to the generalized principle that dead people don't come alive again.

Honest apologists should be willing to try and defend the whole territory of miraculous Gospel claims, rather than abandoning it in a tactical trick and hoping to snatch it all back again later.
 1. If the "darkness that covered the land" involved the Sun and stars shutting down temporarily rather than some kind of local obscuring of the sky over Jerusalem, it would have been noticed by everybody.

I admire your dedication to this subject.

With that said, people used to believe in miracles and see things all the time. A dead man rising would have been "ho-hum" everyday life. They weren't "extraordinary events" like the atheists today think. They were commonplace.

I certainly would not expect a historian to write about mundane things that happen regularly. The problem is that you guys are applying your present mindset onto 2,000 years ago. Things don't work that way.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1258
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2014, 03:01:33 AM »
^^ Romans loved to write stuff down, they even had a halfway decent postal service. Archeologist have come across notes from soldiers to their moms asking for new underwear (or well, the nearest equivalent), complaining about the personal habits of their tent mates, asking if it was ok to bring a bride home ... yet we have no notes of anyone going "hey, there sure are a lot of Jews coming back from the dead these days" or "I ran this Joseph guy through last week and yesterday he was back! Doesn't ANYONE stay dead anymore?"
How odd.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #72 on: January 22, 2014, 03:20:00 AM »
I honestly thought the numbers would show Christianity is decreasing.  However, it appears that is not the case:

The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the world’s population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).

This apparent stability, however, masks a momentous shift. Although Europe and the Americas still are home to a majority of the world’s Christians (63%), that share is much lower than it was in 1910 (93%). And the proportion of Europeans and Americans who are Christian has dropped from 95% in 1910 to 76% in 2010 in Europe as a whole, and from 96% to 86% in the Americas as a whole

At the same time, Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today – unlike a century ago – is truly a global faith

Source:  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Surprised,

OldChurchGuy

OldChurchGuy, I'm intrigued, those are interesting numbers. But what do you personally take away from the fact that the greatest spread of Christianity is in some of most poor, disadvantaged, and educationally starved parts of the world?

How would you compare this growth, for example, to the decline in places such as Europe and other developed countries?

I admit I didn't put any analysis behind the numbers as I was expecting an overall decline. 

I don't know enough about the demographics behind the numbers to make a judgment one way or the other. 

Having said that, it seems one could argue that religion in general has always appealed more to the poor, disadvantaged and educationally starved because they don't know any better.  Or, because they do know better and religion gives them and their offspring hope in coping with the world. 

Not trying to sound like a politician,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #73 on: January 22, 2014, 05:38:12 AM »
With that said, people used to believe in miracles and see things all the time. A dead man rising would have been "ho-hum" everyday life. They weren't "extraordinary events" like the atheists today think. They were commonplace.

I certainly would not expect a historian to write about mundane things that happen regularly. The problem is that you guys are applying your present mindset onto 2,000 years ago. Things don't work that way.

What! Either you're really naive, intellectually lazy or dishonest, or haven't really had a deep enough education in other areas except the bible to believe that rising from the dead was "commonplace". Do  you really think 2,000 years ago they knew medical conditions like a person going into a coma or other strange afflictions that cause a person to look and seem to be dead!? This ignorance is why we've heard stories about people being "buried" alive.

But yet here you are in the year 2014 letting religion disregard  all these facts  of medical ignorance in favor of believing the nonsense that "clinically" dead people were able to rise up again. This is absurd and an embarrassment to be sure not only for people with common sense but to people who hold medical degrees.

Spreading lies and misinformation knowingly or unknowingly to others so passionately should make you think twice how you communicate with people but I'm sure you'll compartmentalize all this too in favor of voodoo and magic that cannot be witnessed as much today as it was 2,000 years ago - so commonplace.

You want to believe its true so badly you completely ignore more plausible, rationale, and reasonable explanations for past events.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 06:03:11 AM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2014, 06:02:35 AM »

With that said, people used to believe in miracles and see things all the time. A dead man rising would have been "ho-hum" everyday life. They weren't "extraordinary events" like the atheists today think. They were commonplace.


Didn't you just shoot yourself in both feet?
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #75 on: January 22, 2014, 06:06:42 AM »
if God was fake, you would expect people who prosper the most to give the most thanks to God and the ones who are poor to be atheists.

Except Job, and all his friends, who believed that God rewards faith with health and riches.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #76 on: January 22, 2014, 09:50:24 AM »


That just shows the level of man's greed and man's humongous ego.

Yes that does explain the doctrine of heaven and hell
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1258
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #77 on: January 22, 2014, 09:53:47 AM »
if God was fake, you would expect people who prosper the most to give the most thanks to God and the ones who are poor to be atheists.

Except Job, and all his friends, who believed that God rewards faith with health and riches.

Good thing we have the quran to set the record straight, right?
Good fortune and health in this life are no indication of ones destination in the next life ... the quran says so quite clearly.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #78 on: January 22, 2014, 10:01:23 AM »


Honest apologists should be

frankly, agnostics. Because the field of apology requires dishonesty.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2014, 10:17:06 AM »
I admire your dedication to this subject.

With that said, people used to believe in miracles and see things all the time. A dead man rising would have been "ho-hum" everyday life. They weren't "extraordinary events" like the atheists today think. They were commonplace.

I certainly would not expect a historian to write about mundane things that happen regularly. The problem is that you guys are applying your present mindset onto 2,000 years ago. Things don't work that way.

Would you expect a historian to write down when dead people stopped rising from the dead?  You know, when the 'ho-hum' of resurrection of the dead ceased being a common occurrence.  In fact, wouldn't you expect people to start noting 'ya know, there just seem to be fewer and fewer people coming back to life.'

That seems pretty damn newsworthy, doesn't it?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2014, 10:18:20 AM »
I admire your dedication to this subject.

With that said, people used to believe in miracles and see things all the time. A dead man rising would have been "ho-hum" everyday life. They weren't "extraordinary events" like the atheists today think. They were commonplace.

I certainly would not expect a historian to write about mundane things that happen regularly. The problem is that you guys are applying your present mindset onto 2,000 years ago. Things don't work that way.
Sorry, but you've made some bad conclusions here.  First off, if people came back to life regularly, then why was there so much pomp and circumstance given to funerals, say for emperors?  I mean, if people came back to life regularly, why bury an emperor in a fancy tomb that took years to make?  Seems like wasted effort if you just expect the guy to come back to life.  I mean, we'd expect the same amount of fuss out of someone 'dying' as we do out of them going to sleep, if it was such a mundane, regular thing that nobody even wrote about it.  Yet, time and again, we see elaborate rituals relating to death.  We see those fancy tombs for emperors and kings.

Second, if people came back to life regularly, then why would we have executions in the first place?  I mean, if they're just going to come back to life, then why waste time devising elaborate means of killing them?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the crucifixion/resurrection thing actually happened.  If people regularly came back to life, why would the Romans have bothered with crucifying people to death when they were just going to come back to life?

Third, if people came back to life regularly, and it was something so mundane that nobody even wrote about it...then why do we have the big deal about Jesus being resurrected in the Bible, not to mention Lazarus?  If people came back to life all the time, why did the Gospel writers act like it was so miraculous when Lazarus came back to life, and Jesus after him?  Shouldn't it have been business as usual?

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it...you say that we shouldn't apply our present mindset on people who lived 2000 years ago.  Well, isn't that exactly what you're doing?  I mean, our present mindset is the one that tells us that events which happen regularly aren't worth mentioning, while events which are irregular are the ones worth making a big fuss about.  If our present mindset is not a good yardstick for figuring out how people acted in the past, then why do you think that you would have any better idea than us?  I mean, if they're that much different than us, then they're basically totally alien, and trying to predict why they did what they did would be pretty much futile.  So what gives you confidence that your take on their actions is correct?

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2014, 12:21:46 PM »
A dead man rising would have been...commonplace.

The problem is that you guys ...

I really, REALLY don't think the problem has anything to to with what us guys are doing or not doing.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2014, 08:31:50 PM »
Did skeptic really say that in ancient times people came back from the dead all the time, so the resurrection of Jesus was not even worth writing down?

Did everyone catch that?

So Easter really is just a leftover fertility festival, all about the eggs and the candy. Stick a trident in it. Christianity is so done.

And I move to take away his screen name. He is not. At. All.

If I was a fantasy football player I would get cited for fantasy taunting this guy. I am jeering and poking my fantasy finger in his face right now. ;D
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2014, 11:21:08 PM »
Did skeptic really say that in ancient times people came back from the dead all the time, so the resurrection of Jesus was not even worth writing down?

It's time for you to add it to your signature.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #84 on: January 23, 2014, 12:55:33 AM »
So Easter really is just a leftover fertility festival, all about the eggs and the candy. Stick a trident in it. Christianity is so done.

It's absolutely about the eggs and the candy (and nudge nudge wink wink say no more).  All your Easter are belong to Us! ;D
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #85 on: January 23, 2014, 04:08:16 AM »
With that said, people used to believe in miracles and see things all the time. A dead man rising would have been "ho-hum" everyday life. They weren't "extraordinary events" like the atheists today think. They were commonplace.

So Christ was nothing special.  Loads of people were walking round doing miracles, so many healings and resurrections that people were bored with them.  Just another "dog bites man" story.

And so, no reason whatsoever to acept that Jesus was the son of god, or the messiah.  Just yet another miracle peddlar who happened to have delusions of grandeur.

Mind you, if miracles were so commonplace, it means that the disciples must have REALLY been hicks from the sticks, if this one guy's activities made such an impression.  So what you are saying is that the gospels were written by people who (basically) lived in Backwater County with their extended family and two goats, and their accounts of Jesus' life were the equivalent of a hillbilly coming to town to stay with a friend, and when they got home, telling everyone with amazement how special it was that cousing Billy in the city had ELECTRIC LIGHTS and a REE-FRIDGE-ER-AYTER and a TEE-VEE! 

Basically, they were impressed by Jesus only because they were too dumb and sheltered to know any different, and Christianity was built on the out-of-context recollections of the simplest and most uneducated people of the time?  Fair 'nuff. 

There's surely a lot of True Christians around today then.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #86 on: January 23, 2014, 07:13:31 AM »
Whilst it is certainly true that there were quite a few itinerant preachers around the time of Jesus in Palestine and that some miracles were claimed, I too find it odd that no one mentioned the fact that lots of people were rising from the dead. I suppose it would have to be the Romans as well as, otherwise, the Israelites would eventually have overrun the Romans by not staying dead!

More seriously, if dying and rising from the dead was so common, what does it say about Jesus. If he just did what lots of people were doing, his supposed cat of selfishness - giving up his life for the sins of the world and so forth - probably didn't count as the actions in it were, 'ho-hum' so commonplace as not worthy of note. Which also brings up the question, if this was a commonplace thing, why did the gospel writers bother to mention it as it was - commonplace?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)