Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Please Help Me Continue to Examine Why I Believe Jesus Rose Bodily from the Dead


Forums Forums Religion and Secularism Please Help Me Continue to Examine Why I Believe Jesus Rose Bodily from the Dead

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 241 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #318178
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    I don’t know how Gandalf could have known any of this, do you?

    He’s a fictional character in a fictional book. The author can have him know whatever he wants.

    #318184
    @davidleon
    Participant

    @Lausten Deus ex machina. The author either constructs the character well or the author doesn’t. That’s why the Bible is so impressive. It isn’t constructed like the Dhammapada, Quran, Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Kojiki, etc.

    #318189
    @write4u
    Participant

    Please Help Me Continue to Examine Why I Believe Jesus Rose Bodily from the Dead

    Why is it necessary to assert that Jesus rose bodily from the dead? Would it not be more believable that his beneficent legacy was remembered and grew spiritually in the minds of his followers after his death?

    History abounds with the legacies of great and beloved leaders who left an enduring spriritual impression in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them for the positive image they projected during their lifetime. Did they all rise bodily from the dead?

    And of course the opposite is true also. History abounds with the legacies of the monstrous leaders who left and enduring spiritual impression of evil in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them with disgust. Did they rise bodily from the dead?

    IMO, all miracles which contradict natural laws are allegorical and/or metaphorical in essence. They should be considered and treated that way.

    Only then can we understand and learn the abstract lessons from the stories without the messy confusion of assigning  supernatural abilities of some people. That’s the stuff of mythology and fables and only serves to create contradictions, confusion and in the case of atheists, rejection.

    There is plenty good in the bible without the distraction of miracles. But if theists insist on supernatural beings and doings, oh what a tangled web we weave when first we misrepresent historical fact.

     

    #318193
    @davidleon
    Participant

    Why is it necessary to assert that Jesus rose bodily from the dead? Would it not be more believable that his beneficent legacy was remembered and grew spiritually in the minds of his followers after his death?

    History abounds with the legacies of great and beloved leaders who left an enduring spriritual impression in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them for the positive image they projected during their lifetime. Did they all rise bodily from the dead?

    And of course the opposite is true also. History abounds with the legacies of the monstrous leaders who left and enduring spiritual impression of evil in the minds of people. We all know who they were and why we remember them with disgust. Did they rise bodily from the dead?

    IMO, all miracles which contradict natural laws are allegorical and/or metaphorical in essence. They should be considered and treated that way.

    Only then can we understand and learn the abstract lessons from the stories without the messy confusion of assigning  supernatural abilities of some people. That’s the stuff of mythology and fables and only serves to create contradictions, confusion and in the case of atheists, rejection.

    There is plenty good in the bible without the distraction of miracles. But if theists insist on supernatural beings and doings, oh what a tangled web we weave when first we misrepresent historical fact.

    [Laughs] Oh, boy.

    #318200
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    [Laughs] Oh, boy.

    Not constructive or engaging David.

    #318201
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    Deus ex machina.

    Those words, I don’t think you know what they mean.

    #318213
    @davidleon
    Participant

    Not constructive or engaging David.

    The guy has already made it pretty clear that he isn’t interested in a dialogue with me. I could give my honest opinion about his character and presentation but that would just get me blocked. What can I do? Waste my time by responding to it? Ask pointless questions?

    #318214
    @davidleon
    Participant

    Those words, I don’t think you know what they mean.

    Don’t think I know what they mean?! God of the machine. It’s a literary devise. Producing a solution out of thin air. The Greeks had plays which employed devices like megaphones, uh . . . well, I’m thinking about hypocrites which was all about show, everything exaggerated, but deus ex machina would use a lift or something to produce the god that would solve the problem of the plot. Hitchins said Rowling incorporated all sorts of deus ex machina but I don’t know. I wouldn’t doubt it.

    How about Monty Python? The scene where Brian falls into the spaceship. That’s one.

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by David Leon.
    • This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by David Leon.
    #318216
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    David asks, What can I do?

    Why would you comment on his character? His questions are quite standard discussion material about modern people interacting with ancient scripture and stories of heroes. I’ve had these discussions with believers and non-believers of all stripes. Your questions are only pointless when they veer off into your interpretation of the Bible and make assertions based on your preferences. Even when you put up a “source”, it’s a guy who says that the math of evolution is ridiculous. There is no way to engage with a comment like that.

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by Lausten.
    • This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by Lausten.
    #318219
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    God of the machine. It’s a literary devise.

    Okay, you know the definition. I guess I was thrown by the what you applied it to. A wizard proposing to know something of an after life is not a device to explain a plot hole. It’s rather expected of wizards. What’s interesting is, the same device is a major theme of the New Testament. One person in the OT ascends to heaven and there is nothing there about how you can join him. No one in the OT “conquers death”. Salvation is Jesus’ thing. But is it somehow “real” for Jesus and Christians, but a literary device for every other story?

    #318410
    @widdershins
    Participant

    Deus ex machina. The author either constructs the character well or the author doesn’t. That’s why the Bible is so impressive. It isn’t constructed like the Dhammapada, Quran, Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Kojiki, etc.

    Impressive?  What is impressive about it?  That it’s not constructed like the other works you mentioned?  Why would it be?  There is a VERY big difference between the Bible and those other works, and it’s not the difference you think.

    Dhammapada – a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form

    Quran – believed to be the word of God as dictated to Muhammad

    Tao Te Ching – a Chinese classic text traditionally credited to the 6th-century BC sage Laozi

    Bhagavad Gita – attributed to sage Vyasa

    Kojiki – composed by Ō no Yasumaro at the request of Empress Genmei

    The Bible – The Bible appears in the form of an anthology, compiling texts of a variety of forms

    Is it any wonder one of these things is not like the others?  Everything else you mentioned has one author, one person compiling it, one person composing it.  The Bible has many authors.  And there is ample evidence to irrefutably show that some of those authors were referencing, even sometimes outright plagiarizing older works, sometimes word for word.  II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are identical, word for word, though they were written about 200 years apart.  I seem to remember a couple of chapters in the New Testament, with different authors, being perfectly identical stories, just worded a little differently (very slightly).  And I don’t mean “identical” as in they were both talking about the same events, I mean as in they were both rewriting the same text in their own words.

    #318444
    @write4u
    Participant

    Joseph Campbell; “The hero has a thousand faces

    #318580
    @mriana
    Keymaster

    I also suggest watching this video about concerning “Why We Believe in Gods”, a lecture by Andy Thompson. IMHO, from what I’ve studies about the human brain and behaviour he’s spot on with this subject.

    #318588
    @write4u
    Participant

    Thank you Mriana for that excellent link. Good stuff in there!

    #318596
    @mriana
    Keymaster

    You’re very welcome. I’m a broccoli person. I rather have broccoli than a hamburger. Seriously. So I an outlier. lol

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 241 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.