Saturday, April 23, 2011

really,? a pillar of salt? c'mon man

Talking snakes and donkeys, floating axe heads, people being swallowed by fish, parting of waters and virgin births all seem improbable if not impossible. And this is where I can have some common ground with the Atheist. Those things and many other stories from the Bible all seem impossible. That's why the Easter story is my favorite. The Christmas story is sweet and I do enjoy that season immensely, but if not for Easter my faith and beliefs are all a sham.

If Jesus Christ died on that cross and then three days later rose from the dead, well then all of those other miracles mentioned in the Bible don't seem like to big a stretch.

Why do people fight this so story so hard? Some say Jesus never actually died. Some say he died but the tomb He was buried in contained certain conditions that helped heal Him. The most common conspiracies have to do with the disciples stealing the body, while others say the disciples didn't even know where He was buried. Some say that everyone who saw Christ alive after the crucifixion was hallucinating. BTW there were 17 post resurrection appearances and He was seen by over 500 people during that time. Some try to convince you Jesus had a look a like running around pretending to be Jesus. And then of course there are those who still want to believe Jesus never really even existed.

I believe people want to discredit this story because if this event never took place then Jesus Christ is no different than any other man made god and Christianity is just another club with no answers leading nowhere accept death. But Christ overcame death and in doing so; not only makes all the miracles in the Bible seem like child's play but gives everyone else the opportunity to defeat death as well.

Dear Atheist friend I have no axe to grind with you. I'm good, it's all good, but before you totally turn away from the idea that Christ is alive and well- please remember your views (tho they may seem valid to you) are nothing new. Minutes after Christ arose from the dead there were people doubting, mocking, scoffing, denying and inventing stories to cover something up.

May the peace of the Lord be with you... and you... and you and.. ok, may the peace of the Lord be with all. Late, feen

24 comments:

  1. The Historian Richard C. Carrier summed it up best:

    "Christian apologists will often insist we have to explain the “fact” of the empty tomb. But…the evidence is not the discovery of an empty tomb but the existence of a story about the discovery of an empty tomb. That there was an actual empty tomb is only a theory… to explain the production of the story.... But this theory must be compared with other possible explanations of how and why that story came to exist… and these must be compared on the total examination of the evidence…. Hence, a common mistake is to confuse hypotheses about the evidence with the actual evidence itself."

    What this means is if "the evidence is not the discovery of an empty tomb but the existence of a story about the discovery of an empty tomb" then the numerous sightings and the 500 are not actual historical accounts but fictional additions to the story to make the incredible seem credible.

    Ah, yes, there were these witnesses see. You can ask any of them. The only problem is, we can't. Oddly enough, Christians never seem to puzzle over why, if so many actually saw the Son of God (no less) rise from the dead, glow mightily, and then ascend into the heavens, why on Earth didn't anybody write it down?

    I'm not talking about the "Gospels"... which came decades later... I'm talking about actual eye-witness reports of first century folk who (supposedly) were witness to all the goings on of the day.

    The Christian theory that Jesus rose, and then all the eye-witnesses were later killed or died of old age before they ever told a single soul is not a believable explanation. Somebody would have gone home and said... "Honey, you won't believe what I saw today!"

    No such evidence exists. None. No contemporaneous evidence of any kind to prove Jesus death or resurrection. Which makes it seem awfully fishy that sixty years later, roughly the time the first Gospel is written, suddenly there are all kinds of eye-witness accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, nice to see you blogging again Feeno!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "..the core definition of a modernist is that he is anti supernaturalist. The problem with a person who claims to be religious but anti supernaturalist is that he is cutting off the branch he's sitting on. Religion, if it is anything at all, is the transaction between this world and the next. A religion that is not supernatural is not a religion. It's a political statement, a self help group, a set of table manners or a mixture of all three." Link

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks T-Vick for yet another reason to add to my list. I'm not sure if the Japanese celebrate any Easter type holidays but I do hope you have a nice weekend with your lovely fam.

    'Sup JD, I checked out that site, thanks for sharing, I'll be checking out that Priest's blog from time to time. Hope all is well with you too. Happy Easter.

    feeno

    ReplyDelete
  5. @JD

    I think all realists, naturalists, modernists, and most secularists dismiss the supernatural. After all, it's better to be skeptical of things which haven't been verified beyond a reason of a doubt instead of putting blind faith into everything--lest you stampede off the cliff like a bunch of uncritical lemmings.

    The problem with the quote you gave is that it's purely speculation. Speculation founded upon theological conjecture, no less. That's not a reason to believe. It's just a profession of faith. Mind you, there's a huge difference.

    ReplyDelete
  6. it's better to be skeptical of things which haven't been verified beyond a reason of a doubt instead of putting blind faith into everything--lest you stampede off the cliff like a bunch of uncritical lemmings

    Given that science is rife with unprovable assumptions, then why do skeptics often make it their god? What's the hang-up?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Sup T-Vick

    I wish I could figure out how to do that italics thingy like JD used to show your quote. But you said "it's better to be skeptical of things which haven't........"

    No shit, I could say the same thing to you guys. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean blind faith led them there.

    Doubt and skepticism have been around as long as religion. So be a skeptic, just don't pretend it's because suddenly we are all so much smarter.

    Tristan my dear friend, you can be a brilliant and intellectually honest person and still manage to become a Believer. Maybe one day you'll prove me right.

    late, feen

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wish I could figure out how to do that italics thingy like JD used to show your quote

    Replacing { and } with < and > type {i}words in italics{/i} and it will appear in italics when you post it.

    TV, here is a 2 minute video from William Lane Craig that shows what I was talking about in my 8:50 post. Link

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why do people fight this so story so hard?

    For the simple reason that so many people believe it so intensely. Because so many people make their entire lives revolve around this story, and want to make everyone else's lives also revolve around that story.

    I'm telling you, atheists don't believe in unicorns, but because there aren't too many "unicornians" out there, atheists don't feel compelled to fight unicorn stories so hard.

    I know this guy who intensely believes that Harry Potter is for real. But I don't bother debating him. I just laugh quietly. At least Christians believe something 'mainstream' which makes it interesting to discuss. If it were just a couple of guys worshipping unicorns, I wouldn't fight them. I would just be entertained.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Given that science is rife with unprovable assumptions, then why do skeptics often make it their god? What's the hang-up?

    It's a different type of faith. The faith science is predicated on is one of confidence in the ability to verify and falsify. It is what Spinoza called a faith of understanding and contemplation. It is not blind faith--like religious faith.

    Also, most scientists will say a theory is true, because all the evidence points toward it being true. Gravity is one such theory. Evolution is another. The moment you falsify it, however, it ceases to be true. The thing is, however, most religious faith based claims cannot be falsified, and so do not constitute truths which we can thereby gain knowledge from. They are merely assumptions made prior to the facts, absent any evidence.

    Which brings me to another major distinction. Much of science is predicated on tangible, observable, evidence. Having real evidence allows you to run statistical probabilities which, if enough data has been input, can give you very accurate predictions. Quantum mechanics does this splendidly. Religious faith offers no such capacity to calculate any set of probabilities because there is no initial evidence which is trustworthy.

    I never said scientists don't have faith. They have faith in the scientific method, for example, because it works. It yields results. Religion can only offer you the *promise of "results" but none have ever been proved. That should cause all people of faith (i.e., religious faith) to be wrought with doubt.

    Which goes to answer Feenos statement that you can be intellectually honest and brilliant and still find God. I'm not so certain this follows. If you hold God up to the same level of scrutiny you would anything else, he has to at least pass the basic requisites of scientific validation before you have any proper working theory to test. And in order to do this, you need evidence--lots of it. All the evidence usually cited for God is usually unsound, such as metaphysical conjecture and esoteric theology. But if God were real, the evidence wouldn't be so obscure. Which is why the faith of the scientist is superior--precisely because it is a faith rooted in reality--not in metaphysical assumptions about reality.

    I hope that makes the distinction clearer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The faith science is predicated on is one of confidence in the ability to verify and falsify. It is what Spinoza called a faith of understanding and contemplation. It is not blind faith--like religious faith

    But I find myself perplexed in this instance.

    Is the "faith of understanding and contemplation" not less credible in courtrooms than the testimony of eyewitnesses? Like (perhaps) the gospel accounts?

    most scientists will say a theory is true, because all the evidence points toward it being true

    Given the complete absense of ANY widespread completeing claims as to what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazereth on Easter Sunday, wouldnt then the resurrection account attested to the gospels then seem a bit more plausible?

    The thing is, however, most religious faith based claims cannot be falsified, and so do not constitute truths which we can thereby gain knowledge from

    But one writer did offer up some examples in which Christianity could be falsified.

    For example, if the corpse of Jesus of Nazereth was to be found, wouldnt that then serve to negate Christianity?

    If a conclusive, extra-terrestrial record of the origin of life on this planet, such as proposed by authors Arthur C. Clark and Richard Hoagland were to be found, wouldnt that then nullify the Holy Bible's account?

    Wouldnt an end to all wars and poverty also negate the gospels?

    Religion can only offer you the *promise of "results" but none have ever been proved

    Wouldnt the scientifically verifiable fact that people of religious faith statistically live longer, healthier lives than people of no faith at all then help buttress the idea that there are, in fact, verifiable "results"?

    if God were real, the evidence wouldn't be so obscure. Which is why the faith of the scientist is superior--precisely because it is a faith rooted in reality--not in metaphysical assumptions about reality

    Lets take the gospel accounts of the Resurrection into consideration. No judge worth his weight in black fabric is going to trump the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses with "scientific" evidence.


    This is precisely because of the ever changing nature of science. Theories and methods that are held to today, may be cast aside in favor of other methodology tomorrow.

    If you doubt that this is sheer reality, then why does Richard Dawkins bemoan that this IS in fact the case?

    ReplyDelete
  12. @JD

    Theories and methods that are held to today, may be cast aside in favor of other methodology tomorrow.

    Right. That only supports my first statement. Science corrects itself through verifying evidence, usually by observation and testing, and ultimately falsifying or proving a theory.

    Lets take the gospel accounts of the Resurrection into consideration. No judge worth his weight in black fabric is going to trump the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses with "scientific" evidence.

    On the contrary, eye-witness testimony is frequently trumped in court cases where DNA evidence is brought forth proving that the man everyone claimed "gone and done it" actually never did. But it's not about just one set of evidence either. Judges, and juries, must weigh the evidence. Once there is enough evidence to make the best inference to the truth, that is when a verdict can be made.

    Also, the Gospels do not actually contain any eye-witness accounts. There is no authentic testimony by anyone who may have even been alive in Jesus day. This is a well known fact. As we discussed before, the earliest any of the gospels could have been written is roughly 30 years after Jesus death. The gospels were written by Greeks. Greece is nowhere near Jerusalem. So even assuming the person knew someone who knew Jesus, all we have is the retelling by a foreigner (from another country speaking a different language) of somebody's testimony (an anonymous somebody none-the-less) three decades after the fact. That is not eye-witness testimony. Not even close.

    Eye-witness testimony would be a first person account, not a second hand account told to a third party. So what you have, at best, is a third person account, by someone writing something another person said about an event they may or may not have actually seen.That's the epitome of unreliable evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Given the complete absence of ANY widespread competing claims as to what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazereth on Easter Sunday, wouldn't then the resurrection account attested to the gospels then seem a bit more plausible?"

    No. I already explained why. This is what Richard Carrier addressed in the quote I gave. You're merely confusing a claim (i.e., hypothesis) about the evidence for the actual evidence itself. The reason this doesn't work is three fold.

    1) If the story about 'Resurrection' was just a story--and there is actually quite a lot of evidence to suggest this hypothesis is a good inference--then there would be no competing claims.

    2) More controversial, is the competing gospel evidence which suggest 'visions' of Christ over actual bodily sightings. If the 'Resurrection' was viewed only as a 'spiritual' resurrection and not a bodily one (as many early Christians, such as Gnostics, not to forget St. Paul, claimed) then the absence of competing claims probably means other people already acknowledged that early Christians were having 'visions' of a risen Christ--but not actually eye-witness sightings of an physically risen man.

    3) It amounts to little more than begging the question. This fallacy alone can't prove the veracity of the Gospels, so to claim the eye-witness accounts are accurate because one assumes the Gospels are *historically accurate, doesn't actually prove whether the eye-witness testimony itself is accurate. You can't invoke a fallacy as evidence, unless you intend to be called on it, in which case you must have better supporting evidence outside of your source (because your source has been put into question). But the entire point is, there is no outside evidence. None!

    A really great book which covers these questions is "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave."

    It's a compilation of essays which do a lot to explain all the reasons for being skeptical of the Resurrection narrative. Many of the points raised in the book have never adequately been addressed by Christians, and it's a good book to read because it highlights the important reasons one should be skeptical of such supernatural claims, while at the same time giving you insights as to why skeptics like me require extemporaneous evidence for such claims in the first place.

    Be sure to READ it! It should be on the top of your list. Right up there with "Arguing About Gods" by Graham Oppy and "The End of Biblical Studies" by Hector Avalos.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tristan, I've had the opportunity to study the gospel of Luke in detail, and its companion volume, the book of Acts. Luke's patron, Theophilus commissioned him to write an account of the life of Jesus. He did this, based on eyewitness testimony, which, as he explains, he carefully investigated and verified.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Ross

    Apparently. Luke also got many details wrong. He gives two completely different dates for when Jesus actually was born. That doesn't seem to be very careful, or reliable, record keeping to me.

    The information in his census is all wrong. His chronology of historical figures is bogus, he frequently names the wrong persons, and he misconstrues the entire reason for a census in the first place. A convenient literary technique to get the story to move along, but not very accurate history keeping.

    He borrows a composite of the virgin birth narrative from Isaiah 7, but besides this obvious construction, we must ask ourselves, even if we *assume it was a historical document, how on earth did he verify the virgin birth?

    Did Luke interview one of the wise men, talk to an angel, time travel? Maybe the Holy Spirit confirmed it in him--after all, this would fit the pattern of unreliability with Luke.

    I mean, you have to be smart enough to see that he is narrating a story, not writing reports or proper histories.

    Also, you may want to read Acts more closely, because it is a terribly flawed book when it comes to well known facts. In fact, it contradicts many of Paul's own statements. Acts claims Paul said this or that, when here or there, spoke with this church or not, when in his Epistles Paul actually says the opposite of what Acts claims Paul said. That's not just unreliable, it's completely untrustworthy!

    So be sure to read your Bible more carefully next time. It helps to maintain a critical eye, otherwise, you make the mistake of saying absurd, and wholly untrue, things like it was all "carefully investigated and verified."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey, feeno. I thought I was having a dry spell. Are you out there? Hope all is well,.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In case you check your blog before the holidays, Merry Christmas feeno :D

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey Dude!

    I caught your comment at Tristan's Blog, so I hurried right over here to Wish You a Very Merry Christmas!

    Glad to find that you are alive and (I hope) doing well!

    Catch you later,

    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  19. NCS

    Thanks. Happy New Year! Hope all is well. I need to get back in action and write a post soon? Maybe soon Peace Brudda

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was just thinkin' the same thing MDC

    ReplyDelete