Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Carrikature]

Somebody wake me when Gary poses an actual argument.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "superstition" or "delusion." These are the marks of someone with nothing valuable to say.

Kinda like people just saying, "no it's not"?

[Carrikature]

I think people's stories are generally more persuasive (or not) to those who know the people well. All of our experiences of God are limited by our own particular circumstances. As for my own belief, for me, it seems to be a kind of intuition, fed primarily by the example of love and service of others in the church, especially the experience of social ministry with the poor, and profound experiences in prayer, especially (but not only) in the celebration of the Eucharist, that leave me with a subjective certitude that seems to run very deep. I generally consider such experiences to be real when they challenge me to grow and become a better person, less limited by previous selfishness or other self-limitations.

This may not be the place for it, but I'd be interested in knowing how you arrive at "this must be God".

[robrecht]

"faith in magic"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Listen, guys. Nick and Stein can give you a list of scholars/experts a mile long but none of these experts will claim to be experts in the Supernatural/Miracles. That is what this entire debate boils down to: Did a supernatural event happen in circa 33 AD or not. Nick and Stein's scholars can give you expert opinion on the beliefs and actions of ancient peoples from that time period but they CANNOT give you any expert opinion on the reality or non-reality of any supernatural event.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCHOLAR OF THE SUPERNATURAL...except in Science Fiction movies.

I don't think of the resurrection as magic, which involves a magician fooling people. Do you consider belief in the existence of God to be belief in magic?

[robrecht]

This may not be the place for it, but I'd be interested in knowing how you arrive at "this must be God".

I do not arrive at 'this must be God'. I do not consider myself able to place such necessary conditions on God.

[Gary]

I don't think of the resurrection as magic, which involves a magician fooling people. Do you consider belief in the existence of God to be belief in magic?

I don't agree with your definition of magic. Here is one I agree with:

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?source....0.5qG3HarA9PA

Belief in any being who performs acts using supernatural forces is a belief in magic...by the definition above.

[robrecht]

I don't agree with your definition of magic. Here is one I agree with:

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?source....0.5qG3HarA9PA

Belief in any being who performs acts using supernatural forces is a belief in magic...by the definition above.

I think our definitions are rather similar, but I would emphasize the word 'apparently'. In common parlance, a magician create an illusion of some kind of magical power. If God exists, I don't think he would be creating an illusion or only apparently influencing the course of events, but rather he would be influencing events by the expression of his divine love.

[Gary]

I think our definitions are rather similar, but I would emphasize the word 'apparently'. In common parlance, a magician create an illusion of some kind of magical power. If God exists, I don't think he would be creating an illusion or only apparently influencing the course of events, but rather he would be influencing events by the expression of his divine love.

You are making a very big assumption, my friend. You are assuming that because there may be evidence for a Creator, that that Creator is YOUR god, the one who allegedly came to earth to die on a tree to atone for the righteous anger of...himself...for the wicked sin of ancient-ancestor-forbidden-fruit-eating.

It's a silly superstition, friend. It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to believe that this same deity who allegedly cursed the entire planet for forbidden-fruit-eating loves YOU...but that is not good evidence that this tale is true.

[Carrikature]

I do not arrive at 'this must be God'. I do not consider myself able to place such necessary conditions on God.

But you do believe in the Christian God, yes? I'm not suggesting you would place necessary conditions on God, but you've somehow linked your intuition/experience with God's existence. I'd like to know how you do that.

[robrecht]

But you do believe in the Christian God, yes? I'm not suggesting you would place necessary conditions on God, but you've somehow linked your intuition/experience with God's existence. I'd like to know how you do that.

Yes, I do. I came to believe in God within a Christian community and tradition. The veracity of my experience can certainly be doubted. I speak of intuition because my belief seems rational to me but it is not tied to deductive or conclusive logical proofs. I do think such proofs have some limited value. I used to be an agnostic and atheist and it limited my thinking in ways that also limited my personal growth. I began to see another way that made more sense and helped me to grow as a person. I'm not sure if I can explain it better. In person, I can describe my experience in more detail, but probably no more definitively.

[robrecht]

You are making a very big assumption, my friend. You are assuming that because there may be evidence for a Creator, that that Creator is YOUR god, the one who allegedly came to earth to die on a tree to atone for the righteous anger of...himself...for the wicked sin of ancient-ancestor-forbidden-fruit-eating.

It's a silly superstition, friend. It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to believe that this same deity who allegedly cursed the entire planet for forbidden-fruit-eating loves YOU...but that is not good evidence that this tale is true.

No, I am not making those assumptions. Rather the opposite, I seek to make the Creator and God of love into my God as best I can understand and follow. I do think Jesus was particularly effective in teaching about this God and moral behavior toward others, but that may just be the tradition I was born into. I do not endorse your caricature of Christian theology.

[Gary]

No, I am not making those assumptions. Rather the opposite, I seek to make the Creator and God of love into my God as best I can understand and follow. I do think Jesus was particularly effective in teaching about this God and moral behavior toward others, but that may just be the tradition I was born into. I do not endorse your caricature of Christian theology.

If you are a follower of Jesus the man; the teacher of humanistic principles such as kindness, generosity, compassion, and forgiveness; Jesus the pacifist---all power to you. But if you are pushing my-dead-Jesus-is-the-All-mighty-Ruler-of-the-Universe, then I feel obligated to point out the irrationality of your superstitious belief system because it is a threat to reason and the common good of humankind.

[robrecht]

If you are a follower of Jesus the man; the teacher of humanistic principles such as kindness, generosity, compassion, and forgiveness; Jesus the pacifist---all power to you. But if you are pushing my-dead-Jesus-is-the-All-mighty-Ruler-of-the-Universe, then I feel obligated to point out the irrationality of your superstitious belief system because it is a threat to reason and the common good of humankind.

I have proposed neither threat nor superstitious compulsion upon the common good of humankind. Jesus did teach about the coming Kingdom of God, which included both love of God and love of neighbor as oneself.

[Gary]

I have proposed neither threat nor superstitious compulsion upon the common good of humankind. Jesus did teach about the coming Kingdom of God, which included both love of God and love of neighbor as oneself.

Although a very good man, Jesus was superstitious. The ancient Canaanite god, Yahweh, whom Jesus worshipped, does not exist. Here is the evidence: worshippers of Yahweh say he is perfect. Worshippers of Yahweh also state that Yahweh believed that the earth had a firmament above it upon which he hung the stars, the moon, and the sun.

Yahweh doesn't understand astronomy.

Yahweh was wrong.

Yahweh is not perfect.

Yahweh does not exist.

And this is only one of many Yahwehian mistakes.

[robrecht]

Although a very good man, Jesus was superstitious. The ancient Canaanite god, Yahweh, whom Jesus worshipped, does not exist. Here is the evidence: worshippers of Yahweh say he is perfect. Worshippers of Yahweh also state that Yahweh believed that the earth had a firmament above it upon which he hung the stars, the moon, and the sun.

Yahweh doesn't understand astronomy.

Yahweh was wrong.

Yahweh is not perfect.

Yahweh does not exist.

And this is only one of many Yahwehian mistakes.

I think you have merely proven that ancients did not have a modern scientific understanding of the universe.

[Truthseeker]

Let me clarify a phrase in my last post in this thread (italicized and underlined to highlight the clarification):

Premise A: The Universe, including all humans, exists and evolves according to the current consensual set of physical (natural) principles of physics. The set is complete, at least in the sense that it is all we need to know about the evolution of the universe.

I think that both statements are irrational and illogical. A better statement is this:

"We have no idea...yet...as to the origin of the universe. But instead of throwing up our hands in despair and using the ol' standby explanation---"a god did it"---let's keep investigating and searching for the answer."

At least we agree that science at present is not yet definite or is far from being finished. Why think science can now be used to disprove God?