Romans 16

[BeRational]

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and the accounts are perfectly true, anyone who believes them is still WRONG to do so.

[Khatru]

And that is where you would be wrong, Khatru.  There are a number of things recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures that are distinctly history; then, as is the case with a lot of comparable sources, there is theological, poetical and revelationary material.  If you ask me how we know which is which, it is usually down to the style and form of language used, which is where we need literary critics to guide us.

We also get a lot from archaeology, which, as it turns out, is no friend of the Bible.

There may be some history regarding names and reigns but for the activities of the heroes of the scriptures, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc, there is very little that can be relied on.

[ad_orientem]

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and the accounts are perfectly true, anyone who believes them is still WRONG to do so.

Eh?

[BeRational]

Eh?

Because an anecdotal written account is never sufficient evidence to assume a suspension of the known laws of physics.

Simple

[Nearly Sane]

Basically if something isn't credible, it didn't happen as reported, or there is an explanation, which has nothing to do with a god or the supernatural..

This is an argument by incredulity. There may be insufficent evidnce for something but you can only take an agnostic position, not a gnostic position as you do here

[ippy]

This is an argument by incredulity. There may be insufficent evidnce for something but you can only take an agnostic position, not a gnostic position as you do here

Splitting hairs on on a reasonable comment made by Floo this time; we all know that Floo's point wasn't quite or exactly right in it's use of incredulity but I think we here on this forum are adult enough to not want a 25 page thesis about every detail of our comments, we leave that job to you N S.

I didn't have any difficulty with understanding Floo's post even if Floo wasn't exactly hairsplittingly precise with the way she worded her post.   

ippy 

[Nearly Sane]

Splitting hairs on on a reasonable comment made by Floo this time; we altl know that Floo's point wasn't quite or exactly right in it's use of incredulity but I think we here on this forum are adult enough to not want a 25 page thesis about every detail of our comments, we leave that job to you N S.

I didn't have any difficulty with understanding Floo's post even if Floo wasn't exactly hairsplittingly precise with the way she worded her post.   

ippy

It's exactly the sort of comment you might applaud Hope being picked up on, but then you apply double standards

[ippy]

It's exactly the sort of comment you might applaud Hope being picked up on, but then you apply double standards

You're so predictable unless I had written three or four pages with all of the minutest details; even then you wouldn't be happy with that.

People differ so much that some like to live in a dream world and some don't, who do you think lives in the former and who do you think was the other person I was alluding to, there that wasn't too difficult for you was it N S, or do you want an explanation with as many words and pages as "War and Peace"?

ippy 

[Hope]

You're so predictable unless I had written three or four pages with all of the minutest details; even then you wouldn't be happy with that.

People differ so much that some like to live in a dream world and some don't, who do you think lives in the former and who do you think was the other person I was alluding to, there that wasn't too difficult for you was it N S, or do you want an explanation with as many words and pages as "War and Peace"?

ippy

Well, I can tell you that I and most other religious people don't live in a dream world, ippy.  Does that answer your question?  Many religious (and, no doubt, many non-religious) people live in a world that is unjust, marginalising, disenfranchising and - in same ways - seriously wicked.  Perhaps you don't live in that world.

[Hope]

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and the accounts are perfectly true, anyone who believes them is still WRONG to do so.

And what is the logic behind that statement, BR? 

[Hope]

Because an anecdotal written account is never sufficient evidence to assume a suspension of the known laws of physics.

Simple

Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life.  As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context.  As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on.  What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.

[Nearly Sane]

You're so predictable unless I had written three or four pages with all of the minutest details; even then you wouldn't be happy with that.

People differ so much that some like to live in a dream world and some don't, who do you think lives in the former and who do you think was the other person I was alluding to, there that wasn't too difficult for you was it N S, or do you want an explanation with as many words and pages as "War and Peace"?

ippy

That's a long winded avoidance of your double standards

[Nearly Sane]

Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life.  As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context.  As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on.  What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.

And physical claims are impinged on them as BR is correct to point out.

[Hope]

That's a long winded avoidance of your double standards

I'd say it was a long-winded explanation of his double-standards, NS   

[floo]

Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life.  As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context.  As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on.  What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.

Science hasn't yet discovered all there is to know about how everything came into being, it is a work in progress. In the days when the documents making up the Bible were written science wasn't a concept. It was therefore reasonable that the authors should speculate about how it all came about, hence the creation story. In the 21st century, when we have discovered so much about the universe and our planet, it seems odd that some should think it was a god wot dun it!

[Hope]

Science hasn't yet discovered all there is to know about how everything came into being, it is a work in progress. In the days when the documents making up the Bible were written science wasn't a concept. It was therefore reasonable that the authors should speculate about how it all came about, hence the creation story. In the 21st century, when we have discovered so much about the universe and our planet, it seems odd that some should think it was a god wot dun it!

Actually, Floo, science was a concept.  Somewhat different to and probably more broadly-based than modern science - and oddly enough, we have often simply re-discovered stuff that the ancients already knew (for instance the Greeks and Romans to it for granted that the world was round).  At the same time, we are constantly being reminded that science doesn't deal in right and wrong - not doesn't deal at the moment - which are  important concepts in any society.

[ippy]

That's a long winded avoidance of your double standards

Anything sumed up in less than several million words would be classified as avoidance by your standards.

Most people can grasp every day speech without having to go into the most minute details to enable them to understand, we're not writing legal documents here, even then if we were there will alway be some nurd windbag or another that would like to show how exacting he or she is with their standard of the written word; yes it does impress people but maybe not in the way they think.

Please be my guest and now, nit pick this lot to your hearts content and yes I do avoid long, pointlessly long winded posts.

ippy

[floo]

Actually, Floo, science was a concept.  Somewhat different to and probably more broadly-based than modern science - and oddly enough, we have often simply re-discovered stuff that the ancients already knew (for instance the Greeks and Romans to it for granted that the world was round).  At the same time, we are constantly being reminded that science doesn't deal in right and wrong - not doesn't deal at the moment - which are  important concepts in any society.

Science as we know it today certainly wasn't a concept then. How do you know the Greeks and Romans took it for granted the world was round?

As for right and wrong, there is much that is very wrong in the Bible, which is attributed to god and its acolytes.

[Nearly Sane]

Anything sumed up in less than several million words would be classified as avoidance by your standards.

Most people can grasp every day speech without having to go into the most minute details to enable them to understand, we're not writing legal documents here, even then if we were there will alway be some nurd windbag or another that would like to show how exacting he or she is with their standard of the written word; yes it does impress people but maybe not in the way they think.

Please be my guest and now, nit pick this lot to your hearts content and yes I do avoid long, pointlessly long winded posts.

ippy

More words, more hypocrisy.

[ippy]

Well, I can tell you that I and most other religious people don't live in a dream world, ippy.  Does that answer your question?  Many religious (and, no doubt, many non-religious) people live in a world that is unjust, marginalising, disenfranchising and - in same ways - seriously wicked.  Perhaps you don't live in that world.

So you're not living in a dream world Hope, don't worry about it too much, you'll be ok in the end I'm sure.

ippy

[ippy]

More words, more hypocrisy.

I'll bet that Post was difficult for you N S; it must be of considerable concern for you that less than a couple of thousand words on any given subject and it might be misunderstood.

I call that progress.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I'll bet that Post was difficult for you N S; it must be of considerable concern for you that less than a couple of thousand words on any given subject and it might be misunderstood.

I call that progress.

ippy

Hypocrite

[jeremyp]

We also get a lot from archaeology, which, as it turns out, is no friend of the Bible.

There may be some history regarding names and reigns but for the activities of the heroes of the scriptures, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc, there is very little that can be relied on.

The entire archaeological evidence for any of those people amounts to a single stele with the phrase "House of David" written on it.

[jeremyp]

What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.

What areas are those and how do you know that science can't "impinge" on them?

[jeremyp]

Actually, Floo, science was a concept.  Somewhat different to and probably more broadly-based than modern science - and oddly enough, we have often simply re-discovered stuff that the ancients already knew (for instance the Greeks and Romans to it for granted that the world was round).

You could hardly say that was rediscovered. We didn't forget that the World was round after the Greeks and Romans went away.