Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I think you know what was meant, Chrawnus. Light cannot come into being without a source.
    I don't believe mind can come into being without a source either. I just happen to believe that source is Itself a mind, and not something material.


    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    That much is clear.



    Then I think you are ignoring an enormous body of evidence.
    I'm not so much ignoring it as I'm remaining unconvinced that the evidence is pointing to where you claim it's pointing.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Chrawnus - I just came back from a funeral. The funeral language was filled with references to the glory of the afterlife, the better place the deceased was now and we all aspire to, and the freedom from corporeal bonds. Christian language is full of references to "fleshly desires" and the war between "flesh and spirit." Are you truly going to deny that Christian language is replete with these references?
    "Flesh" and "fleshly desires" refers in Christianity to the lower, base instincts of our fallen nature, not to actual physical flesh. Christian doctrine is that the material world is fallen and marred by sin. But it's not in and of itself sinful, and will be restored to it's full glory with the second coming of Christ. As for the idea that freedom of corporeal bonds is something to look forward to; I guess compared to our current situation it might be something some Christians look forward to. But it's still just an intermediary state, with the full restoration and glorification of our physical bodies being the final goal.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Yeah - it HAS been a lot of decades. I had completely forgotten about the "resurrection of the flesh." I was just thinking about it yesterday at the funeral. The deceased was cremated, which used to be a big no-o in come Christian circles because "there would be no body to resurrect." It was an odd position, given that the human body that is NOT cremated rots to nothing in a fairly short period of time.

    So this is the FIRST response to my little "thought experiment" that actually addresses the question, instead of simply sputtering away into some kind of outrage. So thanks for that response. I withdraw my observation that the mind-without-brain clan is being inconsistent.
    The resurrection of the flesh is one of the chief doctrines of Christianity, and is something you're required to hold to in order to be considered orthodox. I'm a bit surprised you'd have forgotten such a central doctrine of Christianity.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Chicken...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      The resurrection of the flesh is one of the chief doctrines of Christianity, and is something you're required to hold to in order to be considered orthodox. I'm a bit surprised you'd have forgotten such a central doctrine of Christianity.
      carpe seems to have "forgotten" quite a lot about Christianity to the point that one wonders why he ever called himself a Christian.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        I don't believe mind can come into being without a source either. I just happen to believe that source is Itself a mind, and not something material.

        I'm not so much ignoring it as I'm remaining unconvinced that the evidence is pointing to where you claim it's pointing.

        "Flesh" and "fleshly desires" refers in Christianity to the lower, base instincts of our fallen nature, not to actual physical flesh. Christian doctrine is that the material world is fallen and marred by sin. But it's not in and of itself sinful, and will be restored to it's full glory with the second coming of Christ. As for the idea that freedom of corporeal bonds is something to look forward to; I guess compared to our current situation it might be something some Christians look forward to. But it's still just an intermediary state, with the full restoration and glorification of our physical bodies being the final goal.

        The resurrection of the flesh is one of the chief doctrines of Christianity, and is something you're required to hold to in order to be considered orthodox. I'm a bit surprised you'd have forgotten such a central doctrine of Christianity.

        Chrawnus - I was never a biblical literalist and I never bought into some of the Christian "chief doctrines." The resurrection of the body is one that has never made sense to me - and was never part of my beliefs. It's probably why I didn't even remember it. I'm sure there are many Christians out there, especially the more evangelical/conservative ones, who will find that a form of heresy - or grounds for saying "you were never Christian."

        If I had a quarter for every time I've been told I was never Christian... I'd be retired by now!

        Meanwhile, I left Christianity about three decades ago. I'm pretty rusty. And my wife is certainly not a "conventional Christian." She's another who would probably be denounced as "not a real Christian" by most people here.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Again, that doesn't tell us if the brain is the source of the mind, or merely the conduit.
          Why would you assume that the mind is separate from the brain and requires a conduit? You're letting your religious concept of a soul/mind cloud your logic.

          This suggests that you are not even aware of or able to articulate the hidden premises that support your conclusion.
          There is no hidden premise.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            We're several pages in already (18 pages on my browser) and you've yet been able to demonstrate that there's a logical contradiction involved in the concept. All you've been able to demonstrate so far is that you're unable to correctly characterize the doctrine.
            You are in denial if you cannot recognize that a complete divine nature cannot exist simultaneously as a complete human nature in one person at the same time. It's a logical contradiction.

            A nature might be the "sum total of a person's identity" in some definitions of the word, but it does not carry that meaning in the context of the hypostatic union.
            It does in fact.

            A nature is simply the group of 'properties' required for something to be considered to be a specific something. I.e if something has all the properties of a rock then it's a rock, if it has all the properties of water then it's water and so on. And if someone has all the properties that's necessary to be considered a human then that person is a human. Someone who has all the properties necessary to be considered to be both God and man would be a God-man.
            A rock with all the properties of a rock cannot be a flower with all the properties of, say a flower at one and the same time. Or would you consider it a rock/flower?
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              I haven't even presented any evidence for my position, so no stretching is even possible on my part.
              Your position is that the hypostatic union is not contradictory; this is what I'm questioning.

              I have no need to argue for the existence of something I don't believe in.
              You argued that "Anecdotal accounts of NDE's or religious mythology is already far more than what you have for your position". That's precisely the same sort of evidence we have for pagan gods and leprechauns. In short, no proper argument at all.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Chrawnus - I was never a biblical literalist and I never bought into some of the Christian "chief doctrines." The resurrection of the body is one that has never made sense to me - and was never part of my beliefs. It's probably why I didn't even remember it. I'm sure there are many Christians out there, especially the more evangelical/conservative ones, who will find that a form of heresy - or grounds for saying "you were never Christian."
                Not believing in the resurrection of the body would be enough for the vast majority of every Christian that has ever lived to consider you a heretic.

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                If I had a quarter for every time I've been told I was never Christian... I'd be retired by now!
                Well, consider yourself one imaginary quarter richer.

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Meanwhile, I left Christianity about three decades ago. I'm pretty rusty. And my wife is certainly not a "conventional Christian." She's another who would probably be denounced as "not a real Christian" by most people here.
                I don't know what beliefs your wife holds so I can't comment on that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  You are in denial if you cannot recognize that a complete divine nature cannot exist simultaneously as a complete human nature in one person at the same time. It's a logical contradiction.
                  You keep asserting that claim. Strangely enough you seem to be unable to back that claim up with anything substantive.


                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  It does in fact.
                  That's where (among many other things) you're wrong.

                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  A rock with all the properties of a rock cannot be a flower with all the properties of, say a flower at one and the same time. Or would you consider it a rock/flower?
                  I would consider it not at all analogous with the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Your position is that the hypostatic union is not contradictory; this is what I'm questioning.
                    My position is that the hypostatic union has not been shown to be contradictory. The burden is on you to prove that it is, not on me to prove that it isn't.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    You argued that "Anecdotal accounts of NDE's or religious mythology is already far more than what you have for your position". That's precisely the same sort of evidence we have for pagan gods and leprechauns. In short, no proper argument at all.
                    Good job trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you have no good evidence what so ever for the belief that the mind can't survive the death of the brain. It almost worked.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                      Why would you assume that the mind is separate from the brain and requires a conduit?
                      Why would you assume otherwise?
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        You keep asserting that claim. Strangely enough you seem to be unable to back that claim up with anything substantive.
                        It is self-evident that one cannot have two complete natures (divine and human) in one person other than as a theological statement to assert a theological truth.

                        I would consider it not at all analogous with the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
                        It is precisely analogous with the example you gave, namely “if someone has all the properties that's necessary to be considered a human then that person is a human. Someone who has all the properties necessary to be considered to be both God and man would be a God-man”.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Not believing in the resurrection of the body would be enough for the vast majority of every Christian that has ever lived to consider you a heretic.
                          Amazingly - that never actually happened

                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Well, consider yourself one imaginary quarter richer.
                          Would that they were real!

                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          I don't know what beliefs your wife holds so I can't comment on that.
                          She's probably not a "real" Christian either
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Amazingly - that never actually happened



                            Would that they were real!



                            She's probably not a "real" Christian either
                            Most christians from my experience know very little about the bible so aren't what I would call real christians either.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Most christians from my experience know very little about the bible so aren't what I would call real christians either.
                              I don't get into the business of telling anyone who is and is not a real <insert belief system here>. It's not my concern. As for myself, depending on their definition of "Christian," I was a "real Christian" to some, and not to others. For example, if someone believes "once saved always saved," then I was either never a Christian, or I still am. Given my current beliefs, the latter is a hard case to make, so the former is more likely (to them). If "believing in the bodily resurrection" is necessary (as it apparently is for Chrawnus), then I never met that definition of an "actual Christian."

                              Getting into an extended discussion as to whether or not I was an "actual Christian" 30+ years ago doesn't seem to me to be a very good use of my time. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I don't get into the business of telling anyone who is and is not a real <insert belief system here>. It's not my concern. As for myself, depending on their definition of "Christian," I was a "real Christian" to some, and not to others. For example, if someone believes "once saved always saved," then I was either never a Christian, or I still am. Given my current beliefs, the latter is a hard case to make, so the former is more likely (to them). If "believing in the bodily resurrection" is necessary (as it apparently is for Chrawnus), then I never met that definition of an "actual Christian."

                                Getting into an extended discussion as to whether or not I was an "actual Christian" 30+ years ago doesn't seem to me to be a very good use of my time. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.
                                Agreed.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X