Paris

[Howiee]

And we still have people today who think the world is a few thousand years old because they're taking what they read literally.

Yeah, we do. I'm not one of them, btw. I think the scientific evidence for an old earth is persuasive. I also think that the important part of Genesis is what God says, not how long it took Him to do stuff.

[charlesr]

For reference, I'm a lapsed Catholic.
A thought. For a few thousand years, the Jewish god got heavily involved, parting seas, setting bushes on fire, murdering a bunch of Egyptians, drowning the majority of living things on the planet. Then sat back and did nothing. Then Jesus came along. And then back to nothing again. Is there any religious reasoning why it's all ancient history and nothing recent?

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, we do. I'm not one of them, btw. I think the scientific evidence for an old earth is persuasive. I also think that the important part of Genesis is what God says, not how long it took Him to do stuff.

Sure, and I'm guessing (though you can speak for yourself!) that you wouldn't see the Bible as any less important to you or worthy of your respect if that timeline wasn't literal?

[Howiee]

The fact you used the phrase substantial evidence is highly suspect.

This cannot be viewed alone as you have already stated the event underpins your faith.

What was the method of certifying death 2000 years ago? Were soldiers qualified to state the case?

Lack of a body after being placed in a room with valuable spices does not equate to evidence. Quite the opposite, the evidence was removed.

Is seeing a vision an objective claim?

Removed by who? The Romans and the Jews both wanted him dead. This was bad PR for them. Really bad. That leaves the disciples – a scared and uncoordinated bunch of wanted men. Not likely.

Granted, a vision isn't objective – it's a first person private single player experience. Like Half Life. Except the same vision happened to many others at the same time, which seems odd. Of course, the nature of the vision can be disputed but the fact that something happened is acknowledged by mainstream historians.

You're right in saying that the resurrection is at the centre of my faith. Without it, Christianity crumbles. But here's the thing: my faith makes serious demands of me at times. I have a whole stack of reasons why I wouldn't want it to be true. The Christian God is not a God I would opt for if I were to pick one based purely on my likes and dislikes. (I'd probably opt for something that made 50mhz Virtual Console releases a sin punishable by death). I believe in the Christian God because I believe it to be true.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Which backs up entirely what I said. You want it to be true so will grasp at every opportunity to prove it so, while providing very little in substantial evidence.

I have had two instances of unexplained experiences since I lost my dad six months ago. I can't prove it but I'm pretty sure my dad wasn't the second coming. If I claimed he was I have as much evidence as you do about your belief.

[dvdx2]

The problem I have with statements like this is that it fails its own test. Everything is a construct of our brains, including that statement. Why should I believe it? (or anything?)

yes but everything was already here on the planet/in the galaxy /in the universe, before mankind could think about - it factually did exist and didnt just appear at the same time as humans (if you believe the scientific timelines, which has evidence to support it.) There is no evidence of religion, before humanity? or am i missing something? (outside of just believing there was).

[Howiee]

Sure, and I'm guessing (though you can speak for yourself!) that you wouldn't see the Bible as any less important to you or worthy of your respect if that timeline wasn't literal?

Yeah, absolutely. I actually think the opening verses of Genesis are open to interpretation – it's a nonessential doctrine. What follows is the important part.

while providing very little in substantial evidence

So... I've provided some substantial evidence then?

To be fair now, I have given you evidence that's in line with what mainstream historians think, and I've given specific answers to your objections. You can't keep appealing to amateur psychology to tell me why I'm desperate to believe in something. That's bad form, man.

[Dirty Sanchez]

No you haven't. The claims you made are argued over by historians. There is no singular account, therefore the evidence you choose to believe is just that. A belief.

You are wholly entitled to your belief and faith, but please don't try to wrap it up with the claim of substantial evidence when that is clearly not the case.

[dvdx2]

Not really an answer, but ok. Me wanting wanting to believe it to be true has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true. I'm making an objective claim. Engage with my claim, not my motives. They're irrelevant.

For most people,you would need to prove your claim (or at least offer something substantial to back it), for people to believe it. I havent seen anything at all that convinces me at all of a creator or god, that cant be explained by other means, scientific or other.

[dvdx2]

Are you sure about this? Venerating the bible is kind of a core doctrine of Christianity. Obviously there are some liberal takes on the bible by some denominations, but they're very much on the fringe.



Yeah. There are a few facts that mainstream historians acknowledge as being solid: 1) A person named Jesus did exist and died on a Roman cross. We know this from the primary sources of historical documentation (certified dead by Roman soldiers, buried in a tomb with 100lb of spices as per Jewish custom). 2) The tomb was later found empty. If Jesus' body had been found, there would be no resurrection story. The resurrection account is what started the early church. Bear in mind, the authorities at this time were against Christ and his ideology. The authorities would have had every motive (and plenty of resources) to find the body. They didn't. 3) Historians acknowledge (there a few exceptions) that the disciples had an experience of some sort, which the disciples claimed to be a vision of the risen Christ. Of course, this can be disputed (that is was Christ), but it is generally not disputed that something happened. There are plenty of theories as to what might have happened (which you may be aware of), but I find them unsatisfactory explanations.

in all seriousness, could the body have been removed by a back exit?

[Howiee]

For most people,you would need to prove your claim (or at least offer something substantial to back it), for people to believe it. I havent seen anything at all that convinces me at all of a creator or god, that cant be explained by other means, scientific or other.

I think it's very difficult to conclusively prove anything. I actually don't think I can prove to you that God exists – but I can point to certain evidences. For me, there's lots of things that point to a creator. DNA, for example. DNA is a code. Code is a language. Language, as far as we know, can only come from a mind. Is it possible that DNA came to be after billions of years of random incremental changes? Sure. Possible but not plausible. The fact that the universe is expanding is another. Anything that expands has to have a beginning. A beginning needs something to get it started. Then of course, there's the overwhelming appearance of design of the world around us. Richard Dawkins concedes this but calls it an illusion. I say if it walks like a duck...

There's loads more, but I am literally on the verge of getting sacked if I don't get my work done!

[Brad]

Richard Dawkins is a moron and it saddens me that he is seen as a speaker for atheists. I wish Christopher Hitchens was still alive.

If it walks like a duck... it might be someone pretending to be a duck, or something that walks like a duck but isn't a duck. Or a duck.

[Asura]

in all seriousness, could the body have been removed by a back exit?

Tombs generally don't have fire escape exits.

[Howiee]

Richard Dawkins is a moron and it saddens me that he is seen as a speaker for atheists. I wish Christopher Hitchens was still alive.

If it walks like a duck... it might be someone pretending to be a duck, or something that walks like a duck but isn't a duck. Or a duck.

Yeah, I really liked Hitchens too. He seemed like you could have a pint and bit of banter with him. He definitely made me think the most out of all the New Atheists.

I agree with you on the duck. There are certainly other explanations. I suppose it's the statistical odds of basic lifeforms happening at all that get me (I think it's officially something like less than 1 in a million trillion x 20 more trillions), never mind complex human beings with senses of humour and eyeballs and such.

[Asura]

A thought. For a few thousand years, the Jewish god got heavily involved, parting seas, setting bushes on fire, murdering a bunch of Egyptians, drowning the majority of living things on the planet. Then sat back and did nothing. Then Jesus came along. And then back to nothing again. Is there any religious reasoning why it's all ancient history and nothing recent?

Yeah, a similar thing is often leveled at the Amish - specifically that they believe they're strict Christians who follow the one true path... Which for some reason involves the technologies of Europe between 1775 and 1850.

Like, computers and blood transfusions are too "high tech" but a spinning mule is fine, even though that'd be considered high-tech by the standards of the time of Jesus.