But you said a keyword here: proof. And, unless I stipulated it as such, Hawkes was a belief time could be seen. I'm only stating science and using a man of science as less emprical than religion. I mean, the only thing I know about black holes was that awful Disney movie with Max Van Sydow.

DD, Burnin's right -- I've studied nuclear physics, and that's some wacky stuff. I've had more topics introduced with "We don't really have any good idea how this works, but we're going to try and teach it like so ..." If science is clear-cut and black-and-white, I'll take the absurdly unprovable "religious wackos" any day.

As to proof, I didn't really think my statement needed any backing up. Place yourself in Jerusalem in 40AD. There's a bunch of psychos wandering around claiming that some guy the Romans executed a couple of years ago has risen from the dead. Being a good Jewish leader (or Roman, for that matter), you want to quell this insurrection, so you look up the records and point to the tomb. The body is produced for the gawking public, who rapidly discover that the arse who started the rumor about the ressurection is a lying sack. But that isn't what happened -- rather, a church sprang up around this wacky impossible belief.

Moreover, look at his followers -- all but one were martyred for their teachings. Now let's say that's you -- you're wandering around telling people this stupid story you and some friends made up about how this guy was executed by the Romans, then rose from the dead. The only benefit to believing this foolishness is the promise of eternal life, because it's against the law to believe this thing, and the Pharisees will come hunt you down and feed you to Roman lions for believing it. Right, there you are, teaching this nutso stuff, and you get caught by the Pharisees, or the Romans, or whoever else, and they put you up in front of a bunch of people and say "Recant and live, or stand on your lies and die." Yup yup yup, they all chose to believe their "lie," counting on the promise of eternal life.

If they had made that story up, don't you think one of them would have cracked under that kind of pressure? (Not to bash another religion, but Joseph Smith's cronies sure did. Maybe JS was right, but his friends sure did back out on him.) Don't you think that if the body had been presented, the whole thing would have died 2000 years ago? Don't you think that had you been presented with admitting you had lied about that whole eternal life foolishness, you'd give it up in the face of certain death?

So I'm not sure what proof you're looking for, outside of accepted history and logic. Can you clarify? What exactly would make the gospel accounts more credible for you?

Thanks,

Dan



PS -- some references:
Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ." -- investigative journalist blatantly abuses his journalistic contacts to prove that Christ never existed.
Josh McDowell, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" or "More Than a Carpenter." -- world renowned apologist presents the facts; very straightforward. "Evidence" is huge, but Carpenter is much abbreviated.

No, I will never dispute the story, or that a story has been told, or that there is a story at all. I can't even dispute the story's validity as true or not. In fact, I will say this: the gospels, or what I know of them, still possess some of the most fascinating literature around, and have spawned many other mediums. To be honest, I can't say we would be where we are - on many positive notes - without them. So indeed they serve us more on pluses than minuses.

But it's when one begins to speak in tangibles - burnings in hell if this or that is not done - god watching us, jesus is here or there, etc. or will rise again, etc, I find fault in building such concreteness out of what we know to be stories. That's really my argument. I can withstand harranguings and political pressues by interested groups who try to push religious doctrine - I can - though there are many who fall victim to that. My belief is the bible is and will always remain a good and influential story. But until otherwise proven to be more than a story - a truth with deductive properties - i.e. show me god, jesus, resurrection, etc, those stories are just that: stories.

Alright, DD, I'll play your silly game -- I can't demonstrate with any degree of logic or science or whatever that the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 43, anymore than I can prove how a transistor works. (Prove, I said -- there are lots of neat theories...) I can't really demonstrate scientifically any of the details of the hypostatic union, and the trinity doesn't fit any logical patterns for me.

But let me throw something out. Let's say that I tell you a story. This afternoon I went down to the ATM next to Albertsons in my 1988 Honda Civic to get money. While I was down there, I ran into one of those college girls selling magazine subscriptions for one of those silly contests. Her name was Sarah, and the magazine I ordered was Disney Mag, for a Battered Wives and Children charity. We ended up down a rabbit trail, and she gave me her phone number. After wandering down the rabbit trail, but before returning to the topic, I said "Ooh, did you see that? Over there, a little white bunny! We just followed him way down a rabbit trail!" She laughed, and I asked if she wanted to go out, and she said sure. Woohoo, right? Ok, now let's go a step further -- let's say that you ran into a friend of mine, who told a similar story. In his story, however, the car was a grey sedan, and I went down to the pick up a pizza which I intended to pay cash for, and I came home smiling and saying something about a girl. Let's say that you know me, or live near enough to Silverdale to verify some of these things. Let's say that you can verify the location of the bank, and the ATM, and the Albertsons, and that you know from experience that students from the local colleges have been known to wander around the parking lot soliciting magazine subscriptions for charities.

Did I really say that stupid thing about the rabbit? Did she really laugh? Do I really have a phone number? Well, maybe you don't know that from the available evidence, but you do have a cohesive story that meets all the requirements for internal reliability. You also have the second account, which, while given from a friend and may therefore be biased, sounds like the account of someone who was near enough to have accurate information. Moreover, you have the external reliability as well -- you know that someone going down to Silverdale to pick up a pizza would stop at the ATM between the NFCU and the Albertsons, and that college students often demonstrate this behavior, and that there is a Disney Magazine and a charity for battered wives and children -- so it all fits together. Why would you suspect that I didn't use that stupid rabbit line? Why would you suspect that I didn't get a phone number?

That's exactly why I have a hard time discarding the gospel accounts. The external reliability is excellent -- every fact that I've been able to hunt up from the archaeological accounts has agreed, down to Luke's use of obscure place names and rulers. The internal reliability is fantastic -- the 4 accounts agree just well enough to sound exactly like the stories of guys who were there without sounding like 4 guys sat down and made up some stories. The records from historians of the time describing the events in less detail all match the details provided by the gospel accounts. In light of the fact that every indicatium of reliability is met, I find it nearly impossible to discard them as mere stories.

Now what did Jesus mean when he told that one about the virgins waiting for the wedding? (deer in the headlights) How about that really great parable he told about the rich man? (shrug) You could argue that, too.

But there are some things that are clear from the gospel accounts. These are eyewitness accounts, presented by guys who were there. They were called inexplicably away from their normal lives to follow some guy who claimed to be the son of their God, as prophesied. He predicted his own death, then was crucified by the Romans. Then he rose from the dead, promising eternal life to any who would believe in him.

The men who saw him believed that simple truth -- Jesus Christ was the son of God, and his death and resurrection are all that is required for salvation. They believed it so much that they were willing to die for it later. Who am I to contradict their story -- they were, after all, there for the events they died telling about; I wasn't.

(shrug) So I'd rather not argue any wierd intangibles. Discussing what the author of Hebrews was trying to say when he described Jesus as "the effulgence of God's glory" makes for a great Friday night topic over beer, but isn't really meaningful. The death and resurrection of Jesus securing my salvation, however, is meaningful.


Dan

Hey Dan, I'm pretty fed up with dogma, heresay and half-truths. If you don't know what proof is then you shouldn't expouse the non-existent.

Oh, and I don't play games, friend. I showed you a crypt belonging to one of Christ's contemporaries, and all you've come up with on the part of Christ et al, is hollow language. So with that, all I can say is it's been nice swapping tales with you. SmileWavy

ask bush if it's fiction or not. he has personal conversations with his god. i mean chenney

kevin

dd74, I apologize for offending you. The silly games line is a figure of speech implying agreement while attempting to keep the tone of the post light-hearted. This discussion has far more serious implications than most people would make it out to have, and I was just trying to keep the tone light. The story from the afternoon was analogous to the eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ; it was meant to illustrate, comparing something to which we can all relate (meeting a girl in a parking lot) to something we generally find outlandish (the bible). I meant no offense, and was really beginning to think we were starting down the path of a progressing discussion; my bad for totally derailing it. :(

Dan

Dan, as I said in response to your PM to me where you also apologized, no problem. This is a forum for debates; not personal attacks (I guess :confused: ), and I didn't feel you said anything in which you needed to apologize. Anyway, don't worry about it; just keep the good debate coming... :)

Hey BD!

What kind of Bible did you say you had ?

Do have any knd of documentation and sources that back up your postition?

Be interested to find out.

Thank you,

:cool:

Uh, oh, we've gone and revived _this_ thread again. :) Stand by ...

I got the complimentary one from a hotel ;) JK.

This is my last post in this thread, I don't have a bible anymore since I don't believe. I replaced it with 101 projects and the factory service manual, I can always believe what I read in there.

Let me state I have attended a variety of churches, services and even attended religious classes at school and churches. I was always fascinated how people could be so brainwashed by other people and religion. I remember one time at the Church of Jesus Christ LDS a bishop teaching seminary told us the devil controlled the waters and God controlled the earth, and that missionaries were not to travel by boat. What BS! My proof is good thing happen to bad people, priest assault young kids, and nuns die in bus crashes on there way to church.

If there is a hell, I will be happy to go. All the fun people will be down there with me. I can't wait to hear Jimi Hendrix live and have a true Grateful Dead reunion.

FYI the next big church scandal will be about priests assaulting nuns and nuns assaulting other nuns.