Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Gary]

I disagree with Adrift's assessment of your deconversion; however, I think he's done a fine job handling the scholarship.
I know you don't agree with all of that but I want to make it clear I'm not throwing him under the Gary bus.

Much to the consternation of my fellows I'm not a sola scriptura sort of guy.

The level of perfection reserved for scripture strikes me as odd given that the other witnesses to God's glory are quite obviously fallible/flawed/fallen.
Take Creation in that for every lovely Blue Jay there is a duckling being devoured by a cat.
Take Christ In Us where His image is marred by the failing of the believer.
Take Christ Himself where His image is marred by the evil of his time.

Consider that for the vast majority of human existence people have been finding their way to God, or perhaps more accurately, God has been finding his way to people without the existence of the thing we call the Bible. I think this whole thing is a bit messier than what your average fundamentalist whack job is willing to admit. Jesus comes to earth as God incarnate and has the crap beat out of Him (his image, reputation, etc) but somehow the Bible transcends Creation, Christ in Us, and Christ Himself as this glorious unadulterated thing that floats through history with nary a scratch.

Now I know you don't believe most of what I wrote there but the salient point is that I can count you as rational, even agree with some of what you say, but still find myself a Christian.

The best in your journey, Gary.
-Meh Gerbil

Thank you. I'm curious, however, how do you know God came to earth unless you have reliable historical evidence to prove it? Do you personally choose to believe it by faith (hope in something not seen) or do you demand evidence? If you demand evidence, how are you any different that the fundamentalist?

[DesertBerean]

A fundamentalist demands evidence?

[Meh Gerbil]

I disagree with your assessment that Gary's approach is rational, because his modus operandi tends heavily toward misrepresentation and logical fallacies galore. I could respect his deconversion if he could represent... well, anything fairly. This is why I have a difficult time buying his allegation that he studied carefully, then deconverted for rational reasons; it's totally at odds with the way he comports himself.

I think the Eastern Orthodox put a bit more of their faith in the 'tradition' bin, don't they?
If that is true it would be hard for you to understand the extent some fundamentalists put on the absolute unquestionable infallibility of scripture.
It goes far beyond it being a guide for doctrine and such.

[Gary]

A fundamentalist demands evidence?

A fundamentalist very definitely believes in evidence. For instance, regarding the Exodus story. The fundamentalist would say that even if no evidence has been found to confirm this ancient story, the evidence exists: It just hasn't been uncovered yet.

And that is why there is a Creation Museum. Fundamentalists will "find" evidence to prove their position even if that "evidence" is laughed at by every major science organization on the planet.

[DesertBerean]

A fundamentalist very definitely believes in evidence. For instance, regarding the Exodus story. The fundamentalist would say that even if no evidence has been found to confirm this ancient story, the evidence exists: It just hasn't been uncovered yet.

And that is why there is a Creation Museum. Fundamentalists will "find" evidence to prove their position even if that "evidence" is laughed at by every major science organization on the planet.

I... am going to let you re-read your own words and hope you see what I see. That's not demanding evidence. That's believing the evidence is there DESPITE THE lack thereof.

[Meh Gerbil]

Thank you. I'm curious, however, how do you know God came to earth unless you have reliable historical evidence to prove it? Do you personally choose to believe it by faith (hope in something not seen) or do you demand evidence? If you demand evidence, how are you any different that the fundamentalist?

I think of faith as a journey.
I don't find evidence as a single data point to be very convincing.

For example:
Let's say we found Jesus' tomb and it was empty.
Let's say we found an inscription on the wall that said, "Jesus kicking death's butt A.D 33"
It would still be easy to claim the disciples stole the body.

If we look at how faith actually works its way out we get a picture that looks a little bit more like the disciple's journey.
Those guys had three years of miracles and they still ran like a bunch of pansies when things got tight.
They had to make the journey from believing in evidence to believing in a person.

Learning to believe in a person takes time - it requires a journey.

So I've seen lots of evidence in the Scripture for Jesus Christ and his claims; however, those claims isolated from Creation and the Holy Spirit and the dirt and grime of the absolute hell I endured in college (I had a faith trial like you did) would appear fragile to my way of thinking. God has to have an impact in the here and now or the Bible, no matter how solid and bullet proof it was, would mean nothing to me. Either we have a God who is here or we don't. Telling me where he was yesterday isn't that helpful when things get tough.

It would be accurate to say that I don't believe in God because of the Bible, I believe the Bible because of God.

That means when you throw up an objection it isn't going against isolated scholarly writings on that passage.
It is going up against a track history of reliability that I've experienced over the past three decades.
Reliability that has worked in concert with Creation, the Holy Spirit, and my Journey.

I don't expect any of those to be perfect testimonies to the truth (either because of inherent problems or my ability to perceive correctly).

[Gary]

I... am going to let you re-read your own words and hope you see what I see. That's not demanding evidence. That's believing the evidence is there DESPITE THE lack thereof.

True.

But a fundamentalist would not say, "I believe it happened even though it is a proven fact that no evidence exists". He still insists on evidence as the foundation of his belief. That is why the historicity of the Resurrection is absolutely essential to the fundamentalist's belief system. The fundamentalist would be unwilling to believe in a bodily resurrection simply by faith if in fact it is proven to him that zero physical or historical evidence exists for it.

If evidence were unimportant to fundamentalists, they wouldn't build Creation museums or debate skeptics regarding other Biblical claims. They would simply say, "I believe it by faith. Evidence is irrelevant."

The fundamentalists I know would never say that.

I think we are saying the same thing.

[DesertBerean]

True.

But a fundamentalist would not say, "I believe it happened even though it is a proven fact that no evidence exists". He still insists on evidence as the foundation of his belief. That is why the historicity of the Resurrection is absolutely essential to the fundamentalist's belief system. The fundamentalist would be unwilling to believe in a bodily resurrection simply by faith if in fact it is proven to him that zero physical or historical evidence exists for it.

I think we are saying the same thing.

Um. No. At the moment RL is intruding, so I'm gonna leave this for now and let others weigh in on this ... for the record, I don't see us saying the same thing.

[Gary]

I think of faith as a journey.
I don't find evidence as a single data point to be very convincing.

For example:
Let's say we found Jesus' tomb and it was empty.
Let's say we found an inscription on the wall that said, "Jesus kicking death's butt A.D 33"
It would still be easy to claim the disciples stole the body.

If we look at how faith actually works its way out we get a picture that looks a little bit more like the disciple's journey.
Those guys had three years of miracles and they still ran like a bunch of pansies when things got tight.
They had to make the journey from believing in evidence to believing in a person.

Learning to believe in a person takes time - it requires a journey.

So I've seen lots of evidence in the Scripture for Jesus Christ and his claims; however, those claims isolated from Creation and the Holy Spirit and the dirt and grime of the absolute hell I endured in college (I had a faith trial like you did) would appear fragile to my way of thinking. God has to have an impact in the here and now or the Bible, no matter how solid and bullet proof it was, would mean nothing to me. Either we have a God who is here or we don't. Telling me where he was yesterday isn't that helpful when things get tough.

It would be accurate to say that I don't believe in God because of the Bible, I believe the Bible because of God.

That means when you throw up an objection it isn't going against isolated scholarly writings on that passage.
It is going up against a track history of reliability that I've experienced over the past three decades.
Reliability that has worked in concert with Creation, the Holy Spirit, and my Journey.

I don't expect any of those to be perfect testimonies to the truth (either because of inherent problems or my ability to perceive correctly).

So your belief in a God who came to earth is based primarily on your personal experiences, intuition, and emotions in which you believe an invisible, non-speaking, supernatural Being performs deeds that affect your happiness and well-being. How do you know that these experiences and feelings involve a non-visible, non-speaking, supernatural Being and not simply yourself talking to yourself inside your mind?

[Adam]

I can easily see why Rhinestone Cowboy would have no interest in my Thesis of seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. I would be refuting his whole timeline.

[Meh Gerbil]

So your belief in a God who came to earth is based primarily on your personal experiences, intuition, and emotions in which you believe an invisible, non-speaking, supernatural Being performs deeds that affect your happiness and well-being. How do you know that these experiences and feelings involve a non-visible, non-speaking, supernatural Being and not simply your yourself talking to yourself inside your mind?

The appeal to insanity could unseat anyone's belief system, including mine.

The Holy Spirit (or as you'd put it 'thoughts in my head') are validated and refined against the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of Creation.
Each of these is interpreted and dependent upon one another along a journey that is full of more mistakes than success stories.

I understand that you'd view my claims here as suspect; however, you'd have to admit that a personal journey would be more convincing than a dry document.
I'd encourage you to continue your journey without letting the Bible get in your way.

[Gary]

The appeal to insanity could unseat anyone's belief system, including mine.

The Holy Spirit (or as you'd put it 'thoughts in my head') are validated and refined against the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of Creation.
Each of these is interpreted and dependent upon one another along a journey that is full of more mistakes than success stories.

I understand that you'd view my claims here as suspect; however, you'd have to admit that a personal journey would be more convincing than a dry document.
I'd encourage you to continue your journey without letting the Bible get in your way.

I have found that my personal experiences and emotions are no different now than as a believer. I see no difference in a life of faith and a life of no faith. Many former Christians turned atheists/agnostics share this same experience. Obviously, it is within the realm of possibilities that God is getting ready to "lower the boom" on us at any minute, but as of now, I see no difference.

Many people who have experienced hard times in their lives testify to the peace and comfort that a faith experience has given to them. The problem is, these experiences occur in every religion on the planet and in people who decide to dive deeply into meditation, yoga, and physical exercise. So isn't it possible that the comforting feelings you are experiencing based on "surrendering to (an invisible, non-speaking) God" that has resulted in perceived emotional, physical, and possibly material benefits in your life is simply a pattern of behavior frequently seen by mental health professionals in children who invent imaginary friends??

I can't prove that the peace and happiness that you've found in your spiritual belief system does not come from an invisible, non-speaking, supernatural being, but likewise, you cannot prove that these feelings do not come from a psychological event inside your head. So without objective evidence, I personally do not find your subjective evidence for the existence of your god as sufficiently strong enough to convince me of his reality. I want proof that YOUR god exists, not just an unnamed Creator God. I believe that there is evidence for a Creator God and for that reason I respect his/her/it's creation. But I am not going to jump onto any specific religion's bandwagon without good proof that their god is the Creator god and I don't find Christianity's evidence any better than that of any other religion.

[One Bad Pig]

I think the Eastern Orthodox put a bit more of their faith in the 'tradition' bin, don't they?
If that is true it would be hard for you to understand the extent some fundamentalists put on the absolute unquestionable infallibility of scripture.
It goes far beyond it being a guide for doctrine and such.

The Eastern Orthodox view scripture as the most important part of tradition.

I grew up attending a church that labeled itself "evangelical fundamental."

[Meh Gerbil]

The Eastern Orthodox view scripture as the most important part of tradition.
I grew up attending a church that labeled itself "evangelical fundamental."

Well, that is what assumptions will get me.

[Adrift]

I... am going to let you re-read your own words and hope you see what I see. That's not demanding evidence. That's believing the evidence is there DESPITE THE lack thereof.

This is why I keep telling him to grab a notepad and actually think through some of the bizarre and contradictory things he says on this forum before spouting them off here. Guy doesn't know what "fundamentalist" means, goes to a Theology forum to debate against fundamentalism. Feels like I'm in the Twilight Zone reading some of his goofy posts.