WUMS for Jesus!

[Hope]

That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.  In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit).  If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body.  Did they?  No.  If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?  Humanly-speaking, no.  What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy?  Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.

[floo]

It's a matter of Floo's opinion and the opinion of innumerable people who have had a religious upbringing they consider to have been abusive.

It isn't just religion.

Floo likes to be different.

She doesn't like the things most people do, like holidays, chocolate and Christmas.

She has " attitudes " to certain things, religion being one of them.

If someone likes something or wants to share something the chances are it will be Floo who either disapproves or doesn't share it.

It's just the way she is, I guess.

 
Julie

I like milk chocolate in moderation, and don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.

[Hope]

So you're happy with the fact that, over the years, particular processes or events have been interpreted in different ways by different scientists all using the same methodology?  Where's the evidence value in that?
Examples?

Have to go out now, so will try to come back to this later.  Just a quick comment though: I know I do it sometimes, but could you try to make your comment obviously different from what you are quoting.  I almost missed the response.

Perhaps the most obvious example would be the question 'Is light a particle or a wave?'

[Hope]

I like milk chocolate in moderation, and don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.

Interestingly, Floo isn't much different to me: I like milk chocolate (and I'm having to learn to like it in moderation ( ); and I don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.  Mind you, I suspect the OTT-ness of our two opinions may differ.  Hers, theologically; mine, commercially.

[Gordon]

That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.  In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit).  If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body.  Did they?  No.  If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?  Humanly-speaking, no.  What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy?  Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.

So the story goes - but on what basis have you excluded the possibility of propaganda?

Lets face it, there is nothing in this story that couldn't be fictional - whether it be the impossible bits, such as resurrection claims, or the routine bits, such as who might have seen what, who might have said what to whom etc etc. Even stories about real people can include fictional elements: such as North Korean dictators allegedly showing remarkable golf skills at their very first attempt: not believable though is it?

Some, or even all, of this story could be anecdotal fiction but I've yet to see any of you guys provide a basis for excluding this possibility. You seem to accept that it must be true by default, and also that specific aspects of the story can be used to confirm that the story must be true - so when you say;

...is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?

I'm wondering to what degree you have taken into account that this might not actually be true at all and that it could be propaganda. To exclude the possibility of propaganda in relation to Jesus, but be prepared to be more critical when it involves the likes of North Korean dictators playing golf or ex-American Presidents assuring us that they 'didn't inhale', is special pleading pure and simple.

[Shaker]

Nice one Gordon!

[floo]

I like milk chocolate in moderation, and don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.

Interestingly, Floo isn't much different to me: I like milk chocolate (and I'm having to learn to like it in moderation ( ); and I don't mind Christmas as long as it isn't too OTT.  Mind you, I suspect the OTT-ness of our two opinions may differ.  Hers, theologically; mine, commercially.

By OTT I actually meant in the secular sense.

[Shaker]

Perhaps the most obvious example would be the question 'Is light a particle or a wave?'

You're in error if you think wave-particle duality is a matter of differing opinion amongst scientists. All physicists are working with the same raw data. What we can say for certain is that sometimes light acts as a wave - it has defined wavelengths which can be accurately measured - and at other times it acts like a particle - individual photons can be counted. Absolutely nobody on the face of the planet has or has ever had the faintest idea of why this should be the case or what this means: all we can say for now is what presents itself to the senses, which is that in some cases it acts like a wave and in others it acts like a particle. That's all. For now, at any rate.

[Owlswing]

That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.  In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit).  If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body.  Did they?  No.  If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?  Humanly-speaking, no.  What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy?  Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.

So the story goes - but on what basis have you excluded the possibility of propaganda?

Lets face it, there is nothing in this story that couldn't be fictional - whether it be the impossible bits, such as resurrection claims, or the routine bits, such as who might have seen what, who might have said what to whom etc etc. Even stories about real people can include fictional elements: such as North Korean dictators allegedly showing remarkable golf skills at their very first attempt: not believable though is it?

Some, or even all, of this story could be anecdotal fiction but I've yet to see any of you guys provide a basis for excluding this possibility. You seem to accept that it must be true by default, and also that specific aspects of the story can be used to confirm that the story must be true - so when you say;

...is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?

I'm wondering to what degree you have taken into account that this might not actually be true at all and that it could be propaganda. To exclude the possibility of propaganda in relation to Jesus, but be prepared to be more critical when it involves the likes of North Korean dictators playing golf or ex-American Presidents assuring us that they 'didn't inhale', is special pleading pure and simple.

What Shaker said!

[Nearly Sane]

It's a very odd attempt to shift the burden of proof when people such as Hope and Alan (Alien) ask people to explain the alleged happenings on the assumption that the alleged happenings are true. It is a violation of the historical method

[Shaker]

It's not so much odd as perfectly understandable - from their point of view, I mean.

[ippy]

Does it?  Shortly after I finished my teacher training, I seem to remember that certain long-favoured educational principles were shown to have been falsified by the scientist in question (Burt(?) iirc).  Then, of course, we had Kinsey and his erroneous material regarding sexuality - something that was accepted by the scientific community for some time.  That's just a couple of examples which - whilst the errors have now been uncovered - were allowed to influence public practice for various periods of time.

An other problem, of course, is that when such false material is accepted, 'testable, repeatable and shareable' becomes obsolete.  How long does it take to iron out 'tested, repeatable and shareable' outcomes that have been based on such erroneous material?

Finally, for now, is whilst a lot of scientific material is based on observation and other important and valid ideas, they are often based on an element of guesswork.  Think, for instance, of the idea of carbon-dating.  This is fairly accurate up to the last 50,00 years, but beyond that period of time is pretty useless.  With a planet that is possibly as old as 4.5 billion years old, 50K is a pretty insignificant period of time.

I think the sad thing is you were teacher and know so little.

There are lots of very well educated ignorant people about jak, the two don't always mix that well.

ippy

[ippy]

That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.  In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit).  If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body.  Did they?  No.  If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?  Humanly-speaking, no.  What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy?  Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.

You nor anyone else would be able to substantiate any of this babble and you seriously think you have evidence; well if this is an example of your elusive evidence, it's not good. 

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

That part of your post above Hope: "regularly thrown at religion as having no external corroboration"? this is only thrown at religion because religion has no external corroboration? Be fair.

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.  In other words, he either died and stayed dead, or somehow survived the cross and was somehow resuscitated within the rock grave (perhaps by the extreme overnight cold that such an environment might exhibit).  If the former occurred, the authorities would have been able to produce the body.  Did they?  No.  If the latter, is it likely that a seriously injured human being (remember the trauma that his body was put through) would have been able to walk around within 72 hours of such an ordeal, to the extent that the authorities couldn't find him?  Humanly-speaking, no.  What other possibilities would you suggest, ippy?  Remember that the grave was guarded by a troop of soldiers, and realistically, the disciples had no expectations of a resurrection so would have no reason to bribe those guards and steal the body.

Hope

I really don't know why you put so much trust in the resurrection accounts as true historical reportage. The discrepancies in the narratives, and the images of Jesus presented in them certainly do not invite sceptics to consider the sequences of events as realities. Appealing to the problems science might have in explaining Jesus' supposed appearances after the cross are as nothing when set against the anomalies in the narratives themselves.

When St Paul (the first to write of the resurrection) spoke of his experience of the risen Jesus, he was obviously not talking about a being able to pass through walls, share some kippers on toast, and then disappear again - as in John's gospel. His only experience was of a 'being of light', and speaks of 'God choosing to reveal his Son in me'. This seems to be a kind of personal experience of Jesus that modern-day born-agains report, and maybe there was some kind of mass hysteria which then took over the 500 or so other believers, who claimed to have experienced the risen Christ. All this is a long way from the rag-bag of contradictory accounts from the gospels about a half-physical, half spiritual figure who walks around and half the time is not recognised by those he first meets.

[floo]

I am of the firm opinion that if something less than credible in the Bible cannot be proven to be true, like the resurrection, its veracity has to be in serious doubt.

[jakswan]

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.

Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.

Others say its simply fiction.

[Sassy]

I am of the firm opinion that if something less than credible in the Bible cannot be proven to be true, like the resurrection, its veracity has to be in serious doubt.

How do you explain #us' existing in the middle of what appears to a lifeless solar system other than us....
Some would say it is impossible... The things that I see teaches me to trust the creator for the things I do not see.

It is more difficult to find the answer to why we exist (at all)  if what man teaches about the earth and space is true than to believe Christ rose from the dead.

[Sassy]

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.

Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.

Others say its simply fiction.

But we are not fiction, Jak.

It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.

GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.

Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?

[Gordon]

But we are not fiction, Jak.

It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.

How 'we exist' is factually known, in that our species in its current form is part of an ongoing evolutionary process.   

GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.

Argument from both incredulity and ignorance.

Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?

No idea, since I have no idea what your question means!   

[floo]

In fact, I'd say the opposite; let's take the example of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Some here say that the latter is impossible because - humanly-speaking - resurrection is impossible.

Lets take spiderman, some say he was bitten by a spider that gave him his extraordinary powers and some say he was born with them and the spider bite brought the powers out.

Others say its simply fiction.

But we are not fiction, Jak.

It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.

GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?
Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere. Anything possible but not the comic books which is clearly a figment of a mans imagination.

Is everything man teaches anything less than what he can imagine?

Of course there could be another more credible explanation! How do you know life only exists on earth, when the universe is so huge there could be many earth like planets?

[King Oberon]

GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?

Who created god then?

Humans of course.. there is NO other explaination, is there? 

Just because we are too insignificant to know about the huge universe we live in doesn't mean we have to make up gods to fill in the answers, well most of us don't. 

[floo]

Ah but the only explanation is that the deity created itself!

[Alien]

Ah but the only explanation is that the deity created itself!

Silly post.

[jakswan]

But we are not fiction, Jak.

It is a fact we exist but how is not a fact.

GOD, created us because there is no other explanation, is there?

No me not knowing doesn't mean your guess is correct.

Why life exists here but nowhere else.....
Unless they can prove it exists elsewhere.

So can you clarify for us, if they find life elsewhere in the universe you will give up your faith?

[floo]

Ah but the only explanation is that the deity created itself!

Silly post.

No sillier than some of yours, my dear!