Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Adrift]

Yes, sorry, so to your point: Someone who believes in crying paintings, virgin-impregnating ghosts, and space levitating dead men should NOT lecture anyone on their use of Reason.

Individuals who fraudulently invoke the healing power of mystical chinese folk medicine, and therapies rooted in 19th century beliefs in vitalism are the last ones who should be puffing up their chests about how science-y and reasonable they are.

[Gary]

Individuals who fraudulently invoke the healing power of mystical chinese folk medicine, and therapies rooted in 19th century beliefs in vitalism are the last ones who should be puffing up their chests about how science-y and reasonable they are.

No matter how much you hate me and try to destroy me, Adrift, I will not return in kind. I am not trying to harm you or any other Christian. I am trying to save you all from a very dangerous, even deadly, delusion.

[Adrift]

No matter how much you hate me and try to destroy me, Adrift, I will not return in kind. I am not trying to harm you or any other Christian. I am trying to save you all from a very dangerous, even deadly, delusion.

Yes, I'm sure these are the exact types of phrases you mutter while huckstering your patients and applying/recommending potentially harmful "alternative" treatments.

[Gary]

Yes, I'm sure these are the exact types of phrases you mutter while huckstering your patients and applying/recommending potentially harmful "alternative" treatments.

Speaking of "harmful", I would encourage you drop your avatar promoting cigarette smoking. It is a deadly habit.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am ignoring your ongoing slander.

You, friend, should be ashamed of teaching little children that they MUST love a being who will torture them for all eternity if they do not. That is child abuse. Your beliefs are disgusting.

Interesting, I don't teach nor believe the idea that God will torture sinners for all eternity, but I guess when you can't refute a word your opponents say making up what you want them to believe is a nice alternative.

[lilpixieofterror]

You won't ignore me. As we've seen before, your pride and lack of self-control won't let you.

Just be a women that proves him wrong. He'll ignore you and half way stick to it.

[lilpixieofterror]

No. I know nothing of Christianity, even though I was raised in it and lived it until my early fifties. But I have heard that accusation many times before, and so have most ex-Christian atheists and agnostics. Ask any ex-Christian, even ex-pastors and they will tell you that they have been told the following by Christians: "You left Christianity for one of two reasons: You wanted to live a life of sin, or, you didn't understand real Christianity to begin with."

Nope. None of us left Christianity because we saw through all the assumptions and generalizations to see that Christianity is nothing but a superstitious House of Cards.

And yet, your post continue to show basic ignorance of Christian beliefs and theology. Shoot, you seem to think that people that deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus are Christians, despite several biblical passages that say otherwise and creeds of the early church that say otherwise too. I know you're 'ignoring me' because you can't stand it when women prove you wrong, but being a 'Christian' for decades doesn't prove you know a thing about it. Your profound ignorance, about the most basic doctrines of the church, proves that you can claim to be a Christian, but not know a thing about it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Speaking of "harmful", I would encourage you drop your avatar promoting cigarette smoking. It is a deadly habit.

I'm pretty sure that cigarette smoke doesn't effect the living dead or cartoon characters.

[lilpixieofterror]

Individuals who fraudulently invoke the healing power of mystical chinese folk medicine, and therapies rooted in 19th century beliefs in vitalism are the last ones who should be puffing up their chests about how science-y and reasonable they are.

It is kinda entertaining when a snake oil salesman tries to complain about what he believes is snake oil from others. Perhaps he doesn't like the competition from the faith healer type preachers.

[Gary]

And yet, your post continue to show basic ignorance of Christian beliefs and theology. Shoot, you seem to think that people that deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus are Christians, despite several biblical passages that say otherwise and creeds of the early church that say otherwise too. I know you're 'ignoring me' because you can't stand it when women prove you wrong, but being a 'Christian' for decades doesn't prove you know a thing about it. Your profound ignorance, about the most basic doctrines of the church, proves that you can claim to be a Christian, but not know a thing about it.

I will be happy to engage you when you discuss issues without nasty personal insults, the same gender-neutral policy I am following with Adrift. When he's a jerk, I ignore him. When he acts like an adult and discusses the issues, I engage him.

[Gary]

It is kinda entertaining when a snake oil salesman tries to complain about what he believes is snake oil from others. Perhaps he doesn't like the competition from the faith healer type preachers.

See. You know nothing about me but insult my character anyway. This is why I ignore you.

As pompous and condescending as Nick (and sometimes Stein) is, he doesn't lower himself to vicious personal insults. For that I respect him.

[Rushing Jaws]

STM the Resurrection of Our Lord cannot be proved to have happened, does not need to be proved to have happened, should not be attempted to prove to have happened. It can be and should be proclaimed, because it shows Who was raised. The Apostles proclaimed it - but they did not make of attempting to prove it had happened, since no such proof is forthcoming or possible. It is like the Identity of Our Lord - you either believe it, or you don't.

Attempting to prove such an event to have happened, as if it were no other in kind than a battle or a treaty or a riot or something like that, demeans it. Events like those are ten a penny - history is full of them. The Resurrection of Christ is like God Himself - it is Incomparable, Unique, Glorious, Life-giving, Holy, Powerful, Grace-giving; not historical. It is *unlike* anything in history - that is its glory, and its difficulty. To call it an historical event, is to suck all the Divine Power, that it manifests, out of it. To treat it like an historical event is a denial of its wholly and purely super-natural character, that makes it an unmediated and unparalleled and world-renewing Act of God. It does not fit into patterns of historical causation, because it has no causes in history - it is not in any way whatever of man's doing, or of man's seeking; unlike historical events, which are related and inter-linked, and are the doing of man. It is a real event, beyond all doubt - but it is not an historical event.

[Gary]

STM the Resurrection of Our Lord cannot be proved to have happened, does not need to be proved to have happened, should not be attempted to prove to have happened. It can be and should be proclaimed, because it shows Who was raised. The Apostles proclaimed it - but they did not make of attempting to prove it had happened, since no such proof is forthcoming or possible. It is like the Identity of Our Lord - you either believe it, or you don't.

Attempting to prove such an event to have happened, as if it were no other in kind than a battle or a treaty or a riot or something like that, demeans it. Events like those are ten a penny - history is full of them. The Resurrection of Christ is like God Himself - it is Incomparable, Unique, Glorious, Life-giving, Holy, Powerful, Grace-giving; not historical. It is *unlike* anything in history - that is its glory, and its difficulty. To call it an historical event, is to suck all the Divine Power, that it manifests, out of it. To treat it like an historical event is a denial of its wholly and purely super-natural character, that makes it an unmediated and unparalleled and world-renewing Act of God. It does not fit into patterns of historical causation, because it has no causes in history - it is not in any way whatever of man's doing, or of man's seeking; unlike historical events, which are related and inter-linked, and are the doing of man. It is a real event, beyond all doubt - but it is not an historical event.

Amen!

If only more Christians thought like you, Jaws!

[One Bad Pig]

I will be happy to engage you when you discuss issues without nasty personal insults, the same gender-neutral policy I am following with Adrift. When he's a jerk, I ignore him. When he acts like an adult and discusses the issues, I engage him.

Funny, your actions proclaim the opposite - you lack the self-control to ignore him when he insults you, while ignoring the issues he brings up for which you have no answer.

[Gary]

Funny, your actions proclaim the opposite - you lack the self-control to ignore him when he insults you, while ignoring the issues he brings up for which you have no answer.

Will you agree to this consensus statement?


Skeptics, such as myself, believe that the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is a very improbable explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet we are willing to admit its possibility. Christians believe that a natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief is very improbable, so improbable as to be practically absurd, yet are willing to admit its possibility.