Dealing with Fundamentalism: Secular alternative, or take back the church?

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't be so simplistic . The question of abiogenesis, micro and macro evolution is important here too, which affects the question. One could believe that God or the giant pixie created all life, whereupon it evolved.

So God winds the machine, and lets it run?

Catastrophists fit in much better with a God who can, and does intervene in the world.

Indeed they hold determinism and some twisted teleological theory that I disagree with.

So they go from being uncertain to twisted? That's a bit of a sudden shift.

[Ben Kenobi]

But why does Jesus being resurrected or not have anything to do with the validity of his teachings? Shouldn't we love thy neighbor regardless?

Smiley:

Good question.

The problem with following the teachings of Christ, is that I must ask you why would one want to do so?

[Whaleboy]

In the same sense, one does not reject the evidence of the precession of Mercury for not fitting into Newtonian mechanics.

I assume you are familiar with General Relativity? Consistent with Newton, as in it doesn't refute it, it adds more variables to put it simplistically.

Just because you have evidence of something that does not fit with the established theories, is not enough to reject the Gospel accounts.

You may find that an empty statement, but it was a very important point for me.

But the burden of proof is on you since you would propose it. The scientific evidence that refutes it is plain to see, you must back that up. It's ridiculous to assume it true and then ask for it to be rejected, when it fails to counter the scientific arguments!

Where is the critical and consistent evidence for the Gospels accounts?

Indeed I do.

Why?

Now you prefer a faith that is not falsifiable to a faith that is?

I never inferred my preference. My preference is for a rational attitude. As for faith, I have it as subjective and incommunicable. By definition it is unfalsifiable in it's subjectivity (to falsify something you need to objectively refer it) but by that, it is not an objective theory.

Considering that I am the one who trusts in the accounts, and you do not, I think my interpretation to be more reliable.

Ad hominem. Are you saying that other interpretations of the bible are going to be less valid? Would you say that your interpretation is more valid than an abstract interpretation, or perhaps the Jewish one? Upon what basis?

[Whaleboy]

But why does Jesus being resurrected or not have anything to do with the validity of his teachings? Shouldn't we love thy neighbor regardless?

Wasn't that moses?

So God winds the machine, and lets it run?

Catastrophists fit in much better with a God who can, and does intervene in the world.

Yes but they hold the world to be less than 10'000 years old. I personally find the idea of a God that can and does intervene inconsistent with that definition of God.

So they go from being uncertain to twisted? That's a bit of a sudden shift.

No they accept evolution once life starts but remain ambiguous and uncertain as to how it starts. As for the question of Gods existence, thats when the teleology rears it's childish head.

[Whaleboy]

Now I really am off to bed

[Ben Kenobi]

What happened is that the particulars of an interesting Jonathan Creek mystery got lost in the depths of two millenia of BS and history.

As has Socrates' Hemlock, I suppose.

I can't answer your question, I wasn't there and I'm not intimately familiar with the fairytale in question, but you cannot go from the historical account to then infer ressurection can you?

Sure you can. I have presented the evidence in front of you. The opponents to the Christians affirm that they crucified, and buried Christ in a tomb. They affirm that 3 days later, the tomb was empty.

One is left with the task of explaining how both of these can be true if the disciples did not steal the body, and Christ did not rise from the dead.

And you cannot use deductive reasoning (Sherlock Holmes manner) because there is no plausible or logical limit to determine a set number of possible causes. We could speculate until the cows come home.

Many skeptics, of greater stature than you, do not so flippantly disregard the points that I have made here. If you read the biblical accounts, there is a tremendous amount of evidence in favour of the Christians telling the truth.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The opponents to the Christians affirm that they crucified, and buried Christ in a tomb. They affirm that 3 days later, the tomb was empty.

Really, where? There're no contemporary accounts of Jeshua ben Jospeh, and the only near contemporary accounts were all written by Christians.

[:) Smiley]

In any case, what does the Resurrection have to do with Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, or any of the other major social issues of today?

[Ben Kenobi]

I assume you are familiar with General Relativity? Consistent with Newton, as in it doesn't refute it, it adds more variables to put it simplistically.

Neither then does resurrection contradict physical laws, as it operates on entirely different principles.

But the burden of proof is on you since you would propose it. The scientific evidence that refutes it is plain to see, you must back that up.

The scientific evidence says that these men claimed something to have happen outside of our normal circumstances. True, the burden is on them to show why such thing can happen, but given the evidence, their explanation makes the most sense, over all the competing theories.

It's like Sherlock Holmes. After one has eliminated all the other causes, whatever remains, however implausible must be true.

Deductive reasoning does not permit one to reject something just becuase it is improbable.

Where is the critical and consistent evidence for the Gospels accounts?

There is a massive amount of literature on this one subject, in a critical analysis of the Resurrection. And still, the testimony of the disciples stands to scrutiny better than any other theory.

Why?

Why do I believe this claim is falsifiable? For the reasons I have stated in the thread. The disciples are making real claims on history, that Christ did die, that he did rise, and that all this really happened. They are not giving an allegorical account, but rather a historical one.

All I can say is read the accounts. Are they not restrained?

I never inferred my preference. My preference is for a rational attitude. As for faith, I have it as subjective and incommunicable. By definition it is unfalsifiable in it's subjectivity (to falsify something you need to objectively refer it) but by that, it is not an objective theory.

Thank you for confirming my beliefs, that even though you ridicule faith for not being falsifiable, you prefer such a soft and yielding faith.

Perhaps it is I who have a point, that you ought to base your religion on something more substantial than fairies.

Ad hominem. Are you saying that other interpretations of the bible are going to be less valid? Would you say that your interpretation is more valid than an abstract interpretation, or perhaps the Jewish one? Upon what basis?

Considering that I believe in the Gospels, and their account yes. I am not saying that my interpretation is the best one, just that the one who rejects the claims of the Gospels has no say as to their proper interpretation.

Interpretation implies that there is some value in the text which can be gleaned and trusted. You trust the bible for nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Really, where? There're no contemporary accounts of Jeshua ben Jospeh, and the only near contemporary accounts were all written by Christians.

Why should such evidence be rejected?

Cannot Romans recall Roman history to our satisfaction?

[Ben Kenobi]

In any case, what does the Resurrection have to do with Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, or any of the other major social issues of today?

Answer my question first.

Why should we follow the teachings of Christ?

[:) Smiley]

Some of them are beneficial to society.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some of them?

Which ones are, and which ones are not?

How does one discern which are beneficial, and which are not?

In any case, what does the Resurrection have to do with Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, or any of the other major social issues of today?

If Christ is God, then we have a reason to believe the Christian moral teachings to be superior to all the rest.

[The Mad Monk]

Why did I read all this?

[chequita guevara]

Because your eyes were getting dirty and you thought that scrubbing them with sandpaper might help?