|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2017 3:52:46 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman . If Jesus was all you honestly needed, then you would not have any natural needs. Jesus is not all you need. I once accepted that Jesus had lived, died and been resurrected to atone for my sins. I too was exposed to this information from an infant and so I absorbed it without questioning. The resurrection of Jesus was part of my being; it contributed to the essence of who I was. I considered the resurrection to be as true and as real as any other truth I knew, including those I could prove. But there came a point when I realised my belief had never been exposed to critical inquiry; it had formed by a process of osmosis. I was primed from a child to accept the biblical teachings as truth without questioning. Recognising this fact did not immediately change my belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I actually believed that the proof of this miracle would exist and overwhelmingly support my conviction that Jesus lived, died and rose again. Had I been careful about the information I sourced, and specifically selected material which strengthened my resolve, then I too may still believe in this and the other bibilical miracles upon which the Christian belief is founded. However I placed no restrictions on either my search for evidence nor the way I processed that information. Consequently it became obvious that the resurrection of Jesus did not, and does not withstand critical inquiry. The clues for refuting this miracle lie within the pages of the bible. The below video tells of these. You do not even have to source other information. For those who are uncomfortable making truth claims for which they have no evidence, I encourage you to act on that discomfort. Just recently I withheld a comment at a meeting (@ work ) as I did not have the time to check it was absolutely accurate despite believing that it probably was. A later check proved I could have added that information as it was a fact. To spread information which cannot be verified relies on blind confidence, or as it is commonly known, faith. Joanna! You just featured my favorite preacher!
Yes, -Dan WAS a preacher at one time, -but he saw the light and now is one of my favorite singers!
FFRF -Freedom From Religion Foundation, -is based in Madison Wis. I have been to several of their conventions.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 6, 2017 3:57:00 GMT -5
joanna, have you just as earnestly read and studied rebuttals to Dan Barker's words here?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2017 4:18:55 GMT -5
joanna , have you just as earnestly read and studied rebuttals to Dan Barker's words here? What rebuttals can you find, Elizabeth?
I can't imagine how anyone today can believe in a "bodily" resurrection!
A "spiritual" one perhaps, -as Dan said.
As I have said before, -people living at that time in history often thought that kind of thing could happen.
There were numerous beliefs of that kind.
As far as that goes, - even until much later in history people had such supernatural beliefs in ghosts, demons etc.
But people! We live in the twenty-first century!
Think about it!
At least be honest with yourself!
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 6, 2017 5:36:35 GMT -5
joanna , have you just as earnestly read and studied rebuttals to Dan Barker's words here? What rebuttals can you find, Elizabeth?
I can't imagine how anyone today can believe in a "bodily" resurrection!
A "spiritual" one perhaps, -as Dan said.
As I have said before, -people living at that time in history often thought that kind of thing could happen.
There were numerous beliefs of that kind.
As far as that goes, - even until much later in history people had such supernatural beliefs in ghosts, demons etc.
But people! We live in the twenty-first century!
Think about it!
At least be honest with yourself!
1 Cor 15:12-19 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.I take these verses seriously. The implications of this is something I continue to think about and study. The implications are even more bizarre the longer you think about it - the Bible says Jesus went up into the clouds, and has many verses that attest to his physical, bodily resurrection (he ate with his disciples. They touched him to make sure he wasn't a ghost). This literally means his body (or whatever would remain of it by now) is not on the earth. That is mind-blowing. But if you follow the evidence, his body was never found. It went missing, despite being guarded by roman soldiers. Many witnesses attested to seeing him alive after the resurrection. Some of these witnesses then dedicated the rest of their lives to him, and were martyred, even crucified as well. There are a number of rebuttals to Dan Barker's words that can be found with any simple Google search if you're so inclined. Have you looked? Or do you just prefer to believe Dan Barker and move on? Dan's assumptions are breathtakingly simplistic and he makes quite ridiculous broad sweeping claims about the Bible in general, ignoring much archaeological evidence that supports Biblical accounts. It is therefore hard to take him seriously.
Sometimes stories sound preposterous because we don't have all the details. Sometimes (actually, always) eyewitness accounts to an event vary for various reasons. Let's just take the very first of these - the claim that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark. Another account says the sun had risen. My first question: If you were a detective, what time would you say Mary went to the tomb? a) early in the morning near dawn; b) mid-morning c) midday d) mid-afternooon/early evening e) none of the above can be ascertained, as the evidence gives no clue My second question: Have you ever been in a place where you can see the sun has risen, but where you are, it is still dark? I have. When I go camping - I can see the sun shining on yonder hill, but it hasn't yet risen over the hill where I am, and my campsite it still in the dark. In the Biblical account, maybe this was the case, maybe it wasn't. But my point is, there can be perfectly reasonable explanations to variations in different accounts of the same event. The fundamentals of the story (ie. it was sometime around dawn on the first day of the week) remain. Yes, live in the 21st century. You'll find most people still believe in something unexplained, including love. And hey, scientists still have no clue how life even began.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 7:25:48 GMT -5
Sister worker Marg Magowan was sacked for reaching out to excommunicated souls in Alberta also. Ah, but that was only her earthly judgment sentence/punishment by earthlings. She still has to face the Heavenly Righteous Judge who might see things very differently. So the best may yet be to come for her. There is hope.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 6, 2017 12:17:46 GMT -5
I believe she won't be judged at all because she didn't do anything wrong to be judged for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 17:53:48 GMT -5
I believe she won't be judged at all because she didn't do anything wrong to be judged for. Well that is only if you can vouch for her behavior in all things throughout her entire life.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 6, 2017 20:50:15 GMT -5
elizabethcolemanYour comment that is relevant as it provides an insight into a mindset which is primed to cultivate and preserve extraordinary claims, including the one that Jesus was resurrected. It is more appealing to consider love as being shrouded in mystique rather than from an anthropological perspective which aims to identify the processes and analyses the reactions of the brain etc Hormonal responses just aren't that romantic Love explained, the science of loveLove and ScienceYour obvious tendency to find it easier to dismiss my non-belief in the resurrection as being a simple process "There are a number of rebuttals to Dan Barker's words that can be found with any simple Google search if you're so inclined. Have you looked? Or do you just prefer to believe Dan Barker and move on?" presents as a defensive reaction. Those of us who left a church because we could no longer conform to the Christian belief on ethical grounds, did so at a cost. That your default attitude is one which minimising the efforts we applied to identify whether the biblical claims were reliable is understandable as it is was a threatening process which, when followed without bias, inevitably destabilise one's previous world view. This had an enormous ripple effect on relationships with past close family and friends. Thus it behoves anyone who remains entrenched in such a belief to belittle that process as if it is not based on rational actions. If the bible ( Quran, Torah, Book of Mormon ) was just handed to existing persons who have No prior knowledge of these books nor their content, and they were given the instructions to read them with no external help or additional information and to provide responses to the claims therein, claims which include: Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse Jesus walked on water The Genesis creation account Balaam and the talking ass The resurrection of Jesus The angel Gabriel visiting Mohammed Nephi's communication with the spirit The chances of these readers believing the books would be extremely unlikely. I now regard the bible as a literary work of a similar genre to the Harry Potter series. This view depended on a gradual unravelling of the information I had been taught over decades. De-indoctrination is an arduous process. If people were ethically bound to conveying only that knowledge which can be evidenced and is consistently exposed to review and corrected if found to be flawed, there would be no need for that process. The insidious process of indoctrinatiion that the majority of Christians and other people of faith are exposed to includes either a gradual erosion of critical thinking skills, or is imposed on children whose potential to think for themselves is then undermined by religious indoctrination. This effect is enduring whilst under the influence of a religious belief. Dan Barker is just one of many people who have critiqued the resurrection and concluded it is a legend. On one hand you believe the non-contemporaneously recorded and contradictory biblical claims of what, if true, would have been a most extraordinary event, yet went unnoticed for so long and On the other hand you demand greater evidence to prove that the resurrection is false. This inconsistent approach aligns with and is attributable to the following: Believers regard the bible as a special book. The child who is reared in a Christian (or other faith) household quickly learns that the bible is just not like other books. It is usually bound in a unique style and the title is printed in gold: truly befitting of a 'Holy Book'. Dedicated people typically preach biblical content using an authoritative and convincing tone and delivery style. These people present as being trustworthy and believable. This and other scriptural texts are framed by reverence and 'godly fear'. Questioning the content of the bible is limited to just superficial and minor interpretative adjustments. To deny the occurance of Eg. The miracles involving Jesus would be considérez blasphemous and the social ramifications of doing so come at a great cost, even of ones life in certain historical eras or cultures ( all believers should wonder why some previously literal interpretations are now regarded as metaphorical due to the influence of scientific information having proven them to be false information). The ability to acknowledge the improbability of the resurrection, and other scriptural miracles sourced from all faith based beliefs, having occurred is negated by the strategies inherent to the religious indoctrination process. Conforming to a religious ideology involves neural processes which are antithetical to critical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 6, 2017 22:30:05 GMT -5
I believe she won't be judged at all because she didn't do anything wrong to be judged for. Well that is only if you can vouch for her behavior in all things throughout her entire life. The post was in response to Marg being judged for reaching out to excommunicated souls.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2017 23:16:42 GMT -5
What rebuttals can you find, Elizabeth?
I can't imagine how anyone today can believe in a "bodily" resurrection!
A "spiritual" one perhaps, -as Dan said.
As I have said before, -people living at that time in history often thought that kind of thing could happen.
There were numerous beliefs of that kind.
As far as that goes, - even until much later in history people had such supernatural beliefs in ghosts, demons etc.
But people! We live in the twenty-first century!
Think about it!
At least be honest with yourself! 1 Cor 15:12-19 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.I take these verses seriously. The implications of this is something I continue to think about and study. The implications are even more bizarre the longer you think about it - the Bible says Jesus went up into the clouds, and has many verses that attest to his physical, bodily resurrection (he ate with his disciples. They touched him to make sure he wasn't a ghost). This literally means his body (or whatever would remain of it by now) is not on the earth. That is mind-blowing. But if you follow the evidence, his body was never found. It went missing, despite being guarded by roman soldiers. Many witnesses attested to seeing him alive after the resurrection. Some of these witnesses then dedicated the rest of their lives to him, and were martyred, even crucified as well. There are a number of rebuttals to Dan Barker's words that can be found with any simple Google search if you're so inclined. Have you looked? Or do you just prefer to believe Dan Barker and move on? Dan's assumptions are breathtakingly simplistic and he makes quite ridiculous broad sweeping claims about the Bible in general, ignoring much archaeological evidence that supports Biblical accounts. It is therefore hard to take him seriously.
Sometimes stories sound preposterous because we don't have all the details. Sometimes (actually, always) eyewitness accounts to an event vary for various reasons. Let's just take the very first of these - the claim that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark. Another account says the sun had risen. My first question: If you were a detective, what time would you say Mary went to the tomb? a) early in the morning near dawn; b) mid-morning c) midday d) mid-afternooon/early evening e) none of the above can be ascertained, as the evidence gives no clue My second question: Have you ever been in a place where you can see the sun has risen, but where you are, it is still dark? I have. When I go camping - I can see the sun shining on yonder hill, but it hasn't yet risen over the hill where I am, and my campsite it still in the dark. In the Biblical account, maybe this was the case, maybe it wasn't. But my point is, there can be perfectly reasonable explanations to variations in different accounts of the same event. The fundamentals of the story (ie. it was sometime around dawn on the first day of the week) remain. Yes, live in the 21st century. You'll find most people still believe in something unexplained, including love. And hey, scientists still have no clue how life even began. Elizabeth, I KNOW that you take these verses seriously.
I appreciate that.
I know from your posts that you have thought a lot about all these things and have studied them and you don't make claims without a lot of consideration.
The very fact that you have written a book tells me of your being serious.
Writing isn't as easy as a lot of people might think.
I know, I have tried
But my own belief has nothing to do with "preferring to believe Dan Barker!"
He was only saying what I had realized for myself long before I ever heard of him! You say that his assumptions are simplistic but can you cite where he misquoted the bible verses he referred to?
I do understand your point about the dawn.
You make some very good points about how eyewitness accounts can vary.
In the case of the gospels this is especially true since from the time this event happened and the gospels were actually written were so many years.
Mark's gospel is considered to be the first by most biblical scholars and it was written 40 years after the resurrection was supposed to have happened.
But even if it were only ten years after, -think of all those years that the story was only passed down and repeated by word of mouth before it was written?
You realize as well as I do how such a story could change.
Barker does as well, -in fact I believe that is what he is really saying.
I don't think all those differences are of that much importance.
It is the whole story of a bodily resurrection that I simply can't accept and be honest with myself,
It seems to me that any god that would create a whole set of physical laws for the world, -physical laws that we need to be able to depend on for reality as well as our own safely and then would suspend their very own law for such an event as the "resurrection," - is simply not a god that I could trust for anything else!
It makes me even less apt to believe in such a god!
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 7, 2017 19:01:42 GMT -5
Those of us who left a church because we could no longer conform to the Christian belief on ethical grounds, did so at a cost. That your default attitude is one which minimising the efforts we applied to identify whether the biblical claims were reliable is understandable as it is was a threatening process which, when followed without bias, inevitably destabilise one's previous world view. This had an enormous ripple effect on relationships with past close family and friends. Thus it behoves anyone who remains entrenched in such a belief to belittle that process as if it is not based on rational actions. Your quote here shows just how little you know about me Joanna. You don't need to talk down to me about leaving a church and destabilising one's previous world view. I wrote a whole book about it. Do I belittle that process? Not that all. I spent years going through the process. I came to a different end point to you. I honestly hope you hang your hat on more than Dan Barker's comments which are incredibly weak from a forensic evidence perspective.
I appreciate you are intent on your strident atheistic evangelism, but you also need to appreciate you keep hijacking threads to pursue this personal agenda (yes, it is your personal agenda).
I'm not the first person to believe in the resurrection, Joanna. There are millions of us. I'm one drop in the ocean. You obviously really want to dedicate your life to this evangelism, so start some relevant threads and argue it out with people who respond on those relevant threads. Otherwise you're just the online version of a JW.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 7, 2017 20:34:14 GMT -5
elizabethcolemanIn your previous comment you stated that ´ love was unexplained' which is incorrect. In your latest response you refer to Dan Barker presenting weak forensic evidence when in fact he is critiquing the circumstantial evidence. Of course forensic evidence provides scientific information to verify claims. But when there is a lack of forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence is used to either prove or disprove claims. Can you produce the forensic evidence which evidences the ressurection Elizabeth? Cherie Kropp was the first person I noted who had accused others of ´hijacking a thread'. I consider it reasonable to analogise the accusation of ´hijacking a thread' to the term ´islamaphobià. Both are intended to silence free speech and deter others from criticism. Islamophobia was coined to protect the nearing 2 Billion muslim population. The Islamic belief includes the claim that their prophet used winged equine transport to enter heaven. This should inform that the argumentum ad populum you have used to support the résurrection is unreliable. Those of you who have accused others of hijacking threads are dedicated to a very specific and consistent style of criticism; one which is sourced from religious bigotry and contributes to religious sectarianism. It presents as if you and some others want to control this forum and censor or silence those who do not conform to your uni-focus of negating the 2x2's. I hope that at least some of the frequent visitors to this forum may find the secular input even somewhat refreshing
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 8, 2017 3:14:18 GMT -5
Those of us who left a church because we could no longer conform to the Christian belief on ethical grounds, did so at a cost. That your default attitude is one which minimising the efforts we applied to identify whether the biblical claims were reliable is understandable as it is was a threatening process which, when followed without bias, inevitably destabilise one's previous world view. This had an enormous ripple effect on relationships with past close family and friends. Thus it behoves anyone who remains entrenched in such a belief to belittle that process as if it is not based on rational actions. Your quote here shows just how little you know about me Joanna. You don't need to talk down to me about leaving a church and destabilising one's previous world view. I wrote a whole book about it. Do I belittle that process? Not that all. I spent years going through the process. I came to a different end point to you. I honestly hope you hang your hat on more than Dan Barker's comments which are incredibly weak from a forensic evidence perspective.
I appreciate you are intent on your strident atheistic evangelism, but you also need to appreciate you keep hijacking threads to pursue this personal agenda (yes, it is your personal agenda).
I'm not the first person to believe in the resurrection, Joanna. There are millions of us. I'm one drop in the ocean. You obviously really want to dedicate your life to this evangelism, so start some relevant threads and argue it out with people who respond on those relevant threads. Otherwise you're just the online version of a JW.
Elizbeth, I am sure that you know that just believing that because as you said,
"I'm not the first person to believe in the resurrection, There are millions of us" is NOT a valid argument for Christianity or anything else for that matter.
It is an ad populum fallacy that does not give any proof that the belief is based on fact.
I hardly think it is fair that you accuse Joanna of "strident atheistic evangelism," and "hijacking threads."
She is simply telling the conclusions that SHE personaly has came to, -just as you & I tell OUR conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 8, 2017 7:17:48 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman In your latest response you refer to Dan Barker presenting weak forensic evidence when in fact he is critiquing the circumstantial evidence. Of course forensic evidence provides scientific information to verify claims. But when there is a lack of forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence is used to either prove or disprove claims. Can you produce the forensic evidence which evidences the ressurection Elizabeth? This guy does a good job of showing exactly how Dan Barker failed to use scientific method to test his theories about the resurrection.
The five steps are:
Step One: Make observations and describe what is seen.
Step Two: Form a hypothesis that explains the observations.
Step Three: Make predictions based on this hypothesis.
Step Four: Test the predictions and modify the hypothesis based on the results of the testing.
Step Five: Repeat steps Three and Four until the modified hypothesis is confirmed by all the available data.
www.tektonics.org/guest/barkblund.html
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 8, 2017 7:20:26 GMT -5
PS - Forensic: relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques for investigation..
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 8, 2017 18:01:08 GMT -5
PS - Forensic: relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques for investigation.. Correct, Elizabeth.
Can you use the "application of scientific methods and techniques for investigation" & show that the the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually took place?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 8, 2017 21:37:33 GMT -5
PS - Forensic: relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques for investigation.. NO matter how long the answer was that David Wood gave to try to discount Dan Barker -and it was looong, -all that twisting and turning and, -then of all things, even to using the "steps of scientific method" to try to make his case shows how desperate he was!
David Wood's very OWN argument backfired on him!
Good grief!
I have been saying all along that people simply DID NOT think the same in the days of Jesus as we do today about such unusual incidents as "resurrections!"
They didn't evaluate a situation using the Scientific Method that we do today!
Yet, Wood has the audacity to try to force the "resurrection of Jesus" into the framework of today's Scientific Method!
Wood tries to fit an action (resurrection) into a mold that is completely outside a natural physical law.
I have seen a lot of Christian apologist's trying to prove the "resurrection" of Jesus, but Wood was the first I have seen to be so fool hardy as to try that one.
Like Cinderella's shoe, -it just doesn't work, -no matter how one tries to cut off a toe here or a heel there, and then twist & squeeze the foot into the shoe, -it won't work. .
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 8, 2017 21:45:15 GMT -5
PS - Forensic: relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques for investigation.. Correct, Elizabeth.
Can you use the "application of scientific methods and techniques for investigation" & show that the the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually took place? If you read the link, you'll see that Dan Barker's hypothesis that Jesus didn't rise from the dead is thoroughly discredited, based on the data available.
If you apply the hypothesis that he DID rise from the dead based on the same data, I think you'll have your answer. (I suggest this same data because it is exactly what Dan uses to support his hypothesis.)
At the very least you will have to admit that "Dan’s Hypothesis is to be thoroughly rejected. It is inconsistent with the known data and fails the tests that would support it."
I also suggest it would be highly hypocritical to allow this data to prove that Jesus DIDN'T rise from dead, but refuse to let Christians use this same data to prove he DID.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 8, 2017 21:48:50 GMT -5
NO matter how long the answer was that David Wood gave to try to discount Dan Barker -and it was looong, -all that twisting and turning and, -then of all things, even to using the "steps of scientific method" to try to make his case shows how desperate he was!
David Wood's very OWN argument backfired on him! How, exactly, dmmichgood? This is a rather strenuous statement with absolutely no justification. The whole purpose of good scientific method is to apply that method to data regardless of where/when it is from.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 8, 2017 22:44:21 GMT -5
elizabethcolemanFor some reason I have determined that even if the atheists' rebuttals to Christian claims are logical and sound, your default reaction is to discredit them. It will therefore be more challenging to dismiss this Christian apologist's critique of Wood's "scientific hypothesis" rhetoric upon which you are basing your main negation of Barker's case against the resurrection: Wood distinguishes between “ordinary scientific hypotheses” and what he says is “the Scientific Hypothesis.” Ordinary scientific hypotheses are tentative claims about the world which are confirmed or disconfirmed as evidence comes in. They are, in short, the stuff of science in the day to day. However, Wood claims that all these ordinary hypotheses
“ultimately derive from the Scientific Hypothesis …. The Scientific Hypothesis is the hypothesis on which science as we know it rests. There are three key elements of the Scientific Hypothesis. One, the universe can be understood; two, we can understand it; and three, it’s good for us to understand it.”
The basic idea is that only theism can ground the rational assumption that the universe can be understood, that we can understand it, and that it is good for us to understand it. Since, so Wood claims, these three commitments are necessary to ground every ordinary hypothesis, it follows that every ordinary hypothesis rests on the truth of the Scientific Hypothesis.
The picture Wood draws suggests an epistemological foundationalism in which every ordinary hypothesis depends for its justification on the Scientific Hypothesis much as a rationalist might claim every rational argument depends ultimately on Aristotle’s laws of thought.
As a result, Wood claims that the Scientific Hypothesis is the most well attested of all scientific hypotheses since every other hypothesis depends on it.
That conclusion brings us to the first big problem with Wood’s argument: it’s guilty of a rather glaring equivocation. The so-called Scientific Hypothesis is quite obviously not a scientific hypothesis at all. Rather, it is a set of metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions on which scientific inquiry is allegedly based.
I assume Wood equivocated intentionally for rhetorical purposes, because I don’t believe for a minute that his understanding of science is so poor that he would think the Scientific Hypothesis is, in fact, a scientific hypothesis. But that’s really unfortunate for two reasons. First, this rhetorical choice is liable to generate a significant amount of confusion in those elements of his audience that cannot parse the difference between science and the philosophical presuppositions on which science rests. Second this rhetorical choice is liable to alienate those members of the audience who can tell the difference and thus who can recognize the equivocation for what it is. In other words, it seems to me this is a lose-lose scenario.. ReferenceAs for Wood's attempt to dumb down the reason for Paul skimming over the details of this alleged event: how is it you either refuse to accept or overlook that Wood's statement ' that was not Paul's intent' is incongruent to the reasons Paul wrote his letters? Paul preached Christ. Therefore rather than explaining the omissions, David Wood inadvertently strengthens the case of the skeptic who utilises what is just one more jigsaw piece of information ( Paul's failure to explain the resurrection) which serves to compile the overwhelming picture that undermines the supernatural event of the resurrection ever having occurred. Christian apologists and preachers implore believers to just trust Paul as a man of integrity who would not deceive. I have interacted with seemingly genuine people who have also suffered auditory and visual hallucinations similar to those Paul succumbed to on the road to Damascus, Paul is not a reliable witness on any level. One person told us that the reason he was found carrying a knife was because Jesus had instructed him to use it to kill a neighbour. Yet this young man presented as being gentle and sincere. If you have responded to this previous request then I apologise for having missed it but, like dmmichgood asked Can you produce the forensic evidence which evidences the ressurection Elizabeth?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 8, 2017 23:29:13 GMT -5
If you have responded to this previous request then I apologise for having missed it but, like dmmichgood asked Can you produce the forensic evidence which evidences the ressurection Elizabeth?The scriptures themselves, dear Joanna, eyewitness accounts which are several thousands years old. I can't pull the bones out of the tomb in the Middle East because they are not there (he is risen!). Forensic investigation of the scriptures is compelling, but apparently inadmissible from your perspective, though I'm not sure on what grounds.
I'm certain you believe many other historical accounts and persons with far less authentication.
Regardless of what evidence exists, you would not support evidence for a supernatural being or supernatural event because you don't believe in the supernatural, period. You would not even accept evidence from any supernatural being themselves should they come visit you in the middle of the night (or on the road to Damascus), being already predisposed to your own worldview and belief system with self-admitted denial to accept anything else.
So to what end should I continue to debate this with you?
Given the time that has elapsed since the alleged resurrection (please, for the love of God learn how to spell this), what would constitute legitimate evidence, IYHO?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 9, 2017 2:04:45 GMT -5
If you have responded to this previous request then I apologise for having missed it but, like dmmichgood asked Can you produce the forensic evidence which evidences the ressurection Elizabeth?The scriptures themselves, dear Joanna, eyewitness accounts which are several thousands years old.
I can't pull the bones out of the tomb in the Middle East because they are not there (he is risen!).
Forensic investigation of the scriptures is compelling, but apparently inadmissible from your perspective, though I'm not sure on what grounds.
I'm certain you believe many other historical accounts and persons with far less authentication.
Regardless of what evidence exists, you would not support evidence for a supernatural being or supernatural event because you don't believe in the supernatural, period.
You would not even accept evidence from any supernatural being themselves should they come visit you in the middle of the night (or on the road to Damascus), being already predisposed to your own worldview and belief system with self-admitted denial to accept anything else.
So to what end should I continue to debate this with you?
Given the time that has elapsed since the alleged resurrection (please, for the love of God learn how to spell this), what would constitute legitimate evidence, IYHO?
Elizabeth, -although you are speaking to Joanna, -I'd like to reply.
All the examples that you have used are ones that I have heard many times before by others. Let's take them one at a time.
#1 "eyewitness accounts which are several thousands years old."
Elizabeth, -would you give the same credit about "eyewitness accounts" of everything that has been stated in other sacred books or just the bible?
# 2 "I can't pull the bones out of the tomb in the Middle East because they are not there (he is risen!)."
Would you believe that because you couldn't pull the bones out of every other tomb in the Middle East, that the reason would be that they aren't there because all those people "had risen?"
#3 "Forensic investigation of the scriptures is compelling,"
What "Forensic investigation" do you mean?
I have already said that how we use "Forensic investigation" today was NOT the same as people used in the days when Jesus lived.
#4. "I'm certain you believe many other historical accounts and persons with far less authentication."
If you mean a historical account of a certain person such as, -let's say Plato for instance, yes, but I would NOT believe that Plato or any other person "rose from the dead."
As I said, I have heard all these examples given before, -they seem to be standard ones in fact.
PS:
You really do your own character no good by speaking to Joanna in such a condescending manner as you did by saying, "dear Joanna."
Nor does an ad hominem attack against Joanna help make any of your own messages more believable when you attack her by saying such things as;
"You would not even accept evidence from any supernatural being themselves should they come visit you in the middle of the night (or on the road to Damascus), being already predisposed to your own worldview and belief system with self-admitted denial to accept anything else."
When someone has reliable evidence for something, -their belief should be able to stand alone without any need to attack the another person.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 9, 2017 3:50:01 GMT -5
NO matter how long the answer was that David Wood gave to try to discount Dan Barker -and it was looong, -all that twisting and turning and, -then of all things, even to using the "steps of scientific method" to try to make his case shows how desperate he was!
David Wood's very OWN argument backfired on him!
How, exactly, dmmichgood ? This is a rather strenuous statement with absolutely no justification. The whole purpose of good scientific method is to apply that method to data regardless of where/when it is from.
I told you.
Wood try's to use today's- scientific method, -even using the steps of how science works, -to apply to an incident that supposedly happened 2000 years ago!
Their methods of interpreting "evidence" was in no way near the scientific method used today!
By his trying to do so, -it just backfired on him and truthfully made his comments laughable.
You simply cannot say that the methods we use today applies to that period of time!
He wants to have all the benefits of science that we have today and yet he also want to use it to hang onto to some thing that he (and you) wants to believe happened 2000 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 9, 2017 19:52:54 GMT -5
Elizabeth, -although you are speaking to Joanna, -I'd like to reply.
All the examples that you have used are ones that I have heard many times before by others. Let's take them one at a time.
#1 "eyewitness accounts which are several thousands years old."
Elizabeth, -would you give the same credit about "eyewitness accounts" of everything that has been stated in other sacred books or just the bible?What book they are in, sacred or otherwise, is irrelevant from an objective perspective. I'm talking about multiple sources, authenticated for their own period which are genuine historical records. You can't be biased against them simply because they're in a sacred book. It is the authentication for the era and source that is important. The content can then be compared against other sources and evaluated.
# 2 "I can't pull the bones out of the tomb in the Middle East because they are not there (he is risen!)."
Would you believe that because you couldn't pull the bones out of every other tomb in the Middle East, that the reason would be that they aren't there because all those people "had risen?" Not if there wasn't compelling documentary evidence from multiple sources to suggest such.
#3 "Forensic investigation of the scriptures is compelling,"
What "Forensic investigation" do you mean?
I have already said that how we use "Forensic investigation" today was NOT the same as people used in the days when Jesus lived.I'm not saying it was. That is irrelevant. Such a comment simply shows complete ignorance about scientific method and observation.
#4. "I'm certain you believe many other historical accounts and persons with far less authentication."
If you mean a historical account of a certain person such as, -let's say Plato for instance, yes, but I would NOT believe that Plato or any other person "rose from the dead."I don't believe there's any compelling evidence to suggest he did, so why would you?
As I said, I have heard all these examples given before, -they seem to be standard ones in fact.
PS:
You really do your own character no good by speaking to Joanna in such a condescending manner as you did by saying, "dear Joanna."You don't seem at all concerned about Joanna's condescension to others
Nor does an ad hominem attack against Joanna help make any of your own messages more believable when you attack her by saying such things as;
"You would not even accept evidence from any supernatural being themselves should they come visit you in the middle of the night (or on the road to Damascus), being already predisposed to your own worldview and belief system with self-admitted denial to accept anything else." This is simply stating facts: a person who already admits complete predisposition to a certain end point regardless of the evidence has already ruled out certain outcomes, regardless of evidence. This is also very unscientific. When someone has reliable evidence for something, -their belief should be able to stand alone without any need to attack the another person. Always interesting that you choose to accuse the person who doesn't agree with you of attacks, rather than the person who does.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 9, 2017 19:55:27 GMT -5
I told you.
Wood try's to use today's- scientific method, -even using the steps of how science works, -to apply to an incident that supposedly happened 2000 years ago!
Their methods of interpreting "evidence" was in no way near the scientific method used today!
By his trying to do so, -it just backfired on him and truthfully made his comments laughable.
You simply cannot say that the methods we use today applies to that period of time!
He wants to have all the benefits of science that we have today and yet he also want to use it to hang onto to some thing that he (and you) wants to believe happened 2000 years ago. You'll have to explain to me why this is a problem. What methods of science should be used against data from thousands of years ago? Outdated methods?
You also don't seem to understand that Wood was using the same data and same basic methods of investigation as Barker - he just pointed out Barker's deficiencies in applying the methods.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 9, 2017 22:06:51 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman. Can you please provide links to those " multiple sources, authenticated for their own period which are genuine historical records" regarding the resurrection? EColeman I am interested in your reference "a person who already admits complete predisposition to a certain end point regardless of the evidence has already ruled out certain outcomes". Earlier in this thread I told of the phase when I accepted that Jesus had lived, died and been resurrected. Despite that there were other biblical accounts presented as truth which I found difficult to believe during that time, this remained entrenched in my mind long after I had negated other Christian claims, and if i remember correctly it was the last vestige of the Christian indoctrination process I dismissed with. Elizabeth, referring to those who once believed as having a 'complete predisposition' towards disbelief, just presents as an attempt to defend an ideology. Such a glib claim fails to acknowledge the exhaustive and difficult process those of us who once shared your belief underwent, prior to coming to terms with the fact that religious beliefs are framed by faith for a good reason, as they do not survive unbiased/critical analysis. I speak from my personal experience when stating that "faith is the antidote to reason" or "religiosity has a mindnumbing effect". Enveloping constructs such as love in an aura of mystique, and the tendency to accept extraordinary claims without evidence is consistent with the religious mindset. I too was once under that spell.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 9, 2017 22:49:17 GMT -5
joanna, I frankly don't have the time to write the thesis required on the authentication of the scriptures that would meet your requirements, nor am I a scholar with that expertise. If you want to disagree with the countless scholars who have transcribed and translated them over thousands of years, and are experts in the matter, that is your prerogative. Frankly, I'll take their word over yours, unless you can prove your qualifications to be such.
Having undergone such an exhaustive process to come to your current position, you must have investigated the origins of the historical documents underpinning the current day Bible, and have a good idea of their provenance and language origins. If you have good reason to dismiss them as being non-authentic (different from having faith in the content, I agree), perhaps you could share that exhaustive research with us.
I don't discount the process that you've been through. But given that the question of the origins of life are far from settled, neither should your belief system be settled beyond all doubt.
I continue to investigate the evidence for purposes of my own integrity, but feel no compelling reason to continue to justify myself to you. I'm done here.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2017 14:40:18 GMT -5
I told you.
Wood try's to use today's- scientific method, -even using the steps of how science works, -to apply to an incident that supposedly happened 2000 years ago!
Their methods of interpreting "evidence" was in no way near the scientific method used today!
By his trying to do so, -it just backfired on him and truthfully made his comments laughable.
You simply cannot say that the methods we use today applies to that period of time!
He wants to have all the benefits of science that we have today and yet he also want to use it to hang onto to some thing that he (and you) wants to believe happened 2000 years ago. You'll have to explain to me why this is a problem.
What methods of science should be used against data from thousands of years ago?
Outdated methods?
You also don't seem to understand that Wood was using the same data and same basic methods of investigation as Barker - he just pointed out Barker's deficiencies in applying the methods.
Do I really have to explain one more time that if we really want know the truth of how something happened that we must use the SAME scientific method that science would use today to investigate a past event ?
It doesn't matter if it happened one day ago or 2000 years ago!
Wood did NOT use "same basic methods" of investigation that science would use today !
|
|