h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<< Does the religion in question have any credibility? What arguments can be put forward in support of said religion?>>

<>

That's not true, is it?
If someone asks "What arguments can you use to support your belief that Jesus rose from the dead?", I'd say "Well, the fact that the religion rather than fading away spread so rapidly and unstoppably. The last supper supports the fact that he was crucified, which is a necessary step in the resurrection process. You can try to show that he wasn't, but only by defying the evidence. It's more reasonable, sensible and intelligent to accept that Jesus existed and was crucified.

So even an atheist has to accept that Jesus lived and was crucified, unless he wants to be in denial about the evidence.

As for the resurrection, the main obstacle to looking at it objectively for people like Sorb is that it's so extraordinary. He doesn't struggle to accept that Jesus and his disciples had the last supper. I take it he agrees that Jesus was crucified.

The disciples clearly sincerely believed Jesus had come back to them from the dead. One disciple who wasn't there the first time, Thomas, refused to believe the others until he saw it for himself.

Luke writes, "After his suffering he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

Sorb is skeptical about this testimony because of the extraordinary nature of the resurrection. He requires extraordinary proof. In this respect he's rather like the disciple Thomas.

<>> New thread: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=4293251

"That's not true, is it?"

Yes, it is.

"If someone asks "What arguments can you use to support your belief that Jesus rose from the dead?", I'd say "Well, the fact that the religion rather than fading away spread so rapidly and unstoppably."

This is not an argument which supports the belief a man rose from the dead, somehting that would come as a surprise.

It is an argument which supports the belief that humans are gullible and fear death. These facts should surprise nobody.

Astrology is widespread and unstoppable. Uri Geller's appearances doing hs limited repertoire of simple conjuring tricks in the 70s were widespread and unstoppable.

Once and for all, please, stop using the number of believers there are or were as an example of evidence, because doing so just makes you look stupid.

"The last supper supports the fact that he was crucified"

What? WTF?

The various inconsistent accounts of his crucifixion in the NT support the possibility he was crucified, along with the fact that crucifixion was a common mode of punishment at the time.

"which is a necessary step in the resurrection process."

LOL.

That is FUNNY.

"You can try to show that he wasn't, but only by defying the evidence."

Classic Christian dishonesty.

I have no problem AT ALL with the concept that he had a slap up meal, and was later killed. YOU said Christianity stands or falls on the RESURRECTION. So why all this disingenuous focus on the meal and execution and the evidence for them?

I'll tell you. It's because you have nothing, and are trying to distract attention from that fact.

"It's more reasonable, sensible and intelligent to accept that Jesus existed and was crucified."

Like I said - I don't have any problem with that, per se. It's YOU that's wittering on about these irrelevancies.

"So even an atheist has to accept that Jesus lived and was crucified, unless he wants to be in denial about the evidence."

Yadda yadda. Repetition, trying to convince. I don't "accept", I simply don't have any strong reason to deny. It's a reasonable claim.

"As for the resurrection, the main obstacle to looking at it objectively for people like Sorb is that it's so extraordinary."

Ahem. This is NOT an 'obstacle to looking at it objectively'. I can look objectively at the equally or possibly more extraordinary claim that 70 million years ago this country was tropical and roamed by huge reptilian monsters. The difference is there is EVIDENCE for that claim.

The only 'obstacle to looking at it objectively' is in YOUR mind. You dare not look at it objectively, for obvious reasons.

"He doesn't struggle to accept that Jesus and his disciples had the last supper. I take it he agrees that Jesus was crucified."

Oh good grief, move on.

YOU pointed out that your religion stands or falls on the resurrection. STOP attempting to dishonestly suggest that the resurrection is in any way comparable to any other event in Jesus' life.

"The disciples clearly sincerely believed Jesus had come back to them from the dead."

70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. 61% of Americans believe the account of creation in the book of Genesis is literally true. 60% believe Noah built an ark for all the animals. Most do not believe in evolution.

This, in the most advanced technological society in history. PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

And you present, as "evidence" that something happened, that a bunch of grief-stricken, backward, middle-eastern barbarian fishermen believed it, 2000 years ago? Just how ludicrously gullible are you?

"One disciple who wasn't there the first time, Thomas, refused to believe the others until he saw it for himself."

That's the story we're told. I note the absence from the NT of a Thomas's gospel.

"Luke writes, "After his suffering he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

A more sensible & convincing explanation for this has already been suggested. Im typing with on hand, so get it from the backlog.

"Sorb is skeptical about this testimony because of the extraordinary nature of the resurrection. He requires extraordinary proof. In this respect he's rather like the disciple Thomas."

Or, more aptly, I'm like a rational adult being told a silly story by a child. The credible bits I don't waste my time questioning, even though you try to spin them out. The ridiculous bits I focus on until you admit you're telling stories. Except unlike a child, you've invested too much in this story. It's your life. I pity you.

SoRB

<<"You can try to show that he wasn't, but only by defying the evidence."
Classic Christian dishonesty>>

What dishonesty?

I said:
"The last supper supports the fact that he was crucified, which is a necessary step in the resurrection process. You can try to show that he wasn't (ie.crucified), but only by defying the evidence."

Don't see how that's dishonest. Does Sorb believe Jesus was or wasn't crucified? I believe he was.

I still think it's a funny use of the word 'evidence'.

Still...even supposing we accept there was a figure called Jesus, and he was crucified...I's still be inclined to suspect that the symbolic, preparatory, premonitory Last Supper had been retrofitted to the account. And I'd remain even more sceptical about the resurrection. I regard those claims as even further out than sightings of Elvis, which are at least feasible, if unlikely.

Cor, isn't Sorb uptight!

<<...even supposing we accept there was a figure called Jesus, and he was crucified...>>

This is the thing. Why say "even supposing"? It's more reasonable to say there was a figure called Jesus, and he was crucified, than to say he wasn't.

I concede that the resurrection is much more of a tall order to accept for people due primarily to its extraordinary nature, but the dishonest people are those who try to cast doubt even on Jesus' existence and crucifixion, when there is no reason to doubt these.

Don't forget about the new thread, set up at Taliesin's behest. I don't mind, but maybe that's a better place to post replies: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=4293251

Cor, isn't WelshGhengis thick?

Some quotes from my last post (the "uptight" one):

"I have no problem AT ALL with the concept that he had a slap up meal, and was later killed. YOU said Christianity stands or falls on the RESURRECTION. So why all this disingenuous focus on the meal and execution and the evidence for them?

I'll tell you. It's because you have nothing, and are trying to distract attention from that fact."



" I don't have any problem with that, per se. It's YOU that's wittering on about these irrelevancies."



"Yadda yadda. Repetition, trying to convince. I don't "accept", I simply don't have any strong reason to deny. It's a reasonable claim."



"The only 'obstacle to looking at it objectively' is in YOUR mind. You dare not look at it objectively, for obvious reasons."



"Oh good grief, move on.

YOU pointed out that your religion stands or falls on the resurrection. STOP attempting to dishonestly suggest that the resurrection is in any way comparable to any other event in Jesus' life."



"I'm like a rational adult being told a silly story by a child. The credible bits I don't waste my time questioning, even though you try to spin them out. The ridiculous bits I focus on until you admit you're telling stories. "




Now, you'd think, wouldn't you, that all that would have made it clear enough that all the harping on and on and on about the crucifixion was clearly a dishonest tactic attempting to distract attention from the ludicrousness of the resurrection myth.

And yet here is WG, in not one but two posts, STILL banging on and on about the crucifixion.

It is this sort of wilful dumb pig-ignorance that dissuades most people from wasting their breath talking to Christians. The Christians, poor sods, commonly misinterpret this social rejection as acceptance.

WG - one more time: YOU correctly observed that your entire religion stands or falls on the reality or otherwise of the resurrection. I interpret your continued focus on the last supper & crucifixion as tacit acknowledgement that you cannot provide any evidence that would be accepted by a rational adult that the resurrection took place. Do go on believing it if you choose, of course. Many people require a psychological crutch to deal with the world. Some use alcohol or drugs, you use Christianity. I don't need it, so do please stop trying to pretend your addiction is about something other than what's going on in *your* head.

SoRB
uptight? me?

Hi.

Just popping in to change the thread title to something I feel may be more appropriate


Enjoy!

Rather good book I thought actually.

Pretty well argued and a reasoned-out chain of thought.

All wrong of course. The chap's as mad as a bucket of eels, but entertaining nonetheless.

.. and so the original thread title is hereby reinstated

Thanks be to J.H.Christ

<>

Yes, Sorb didn't seem to take the hint from post 568.

<>

I expect someone's already answered this, but I'm still wading through backlog.

It's part of the Damascus Rule, written a century or more before Christ. The practice itself could, of course, be even older.

Noggin

<>

Although there is one among the Nag Hammadi scrolls. It seems to have been banned by the early church.

Noggin

Can I clarify a little?

There's no reason not to suppose that *someone* was crucified. People were. That someone may even have a seer (one of many at the time) called Yeshua (a common enough name). And he may have had a cult following to the extent that books were written about him.

*On the other hand* - given the proliferation of seers and sects at the time, and given the obviously syncretic nature of Christianity, it's also entirely plausible that the Gospels represent an embellished account of one or more shadowy figures.

We simply don't know.

Sorry - I'm being recalcitrant here, maybe even obtuse, but what I've on the subject has sown sufficient doubt in my mind not to concede on this point. WG may be right. Shall we agree to differ?

But as WG and SoRB both point out, Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection. We certainly can't rely on texts for that: people are known to both embellish and get things wrong.

It's also clear that someone - maybe Jesus - spoke a lot about god. Assuming that Jesus was a real person, this is where he loses me. I can find no reason to suppose that god exists.

How do we deal with that?

but what I've on the subject = but what I've read on the subject

Bravo, Nog. I was going to mention that I'd an idea that there were various agape cults around, but I was uncertain of my sources. I mean, the idea or ritual food sharing is pretty damn common, anthropologically speaking.

By the way I suspect that JH Christ may be breaking the h2g2 rule about multiple identities. After all, he's (they're?) meant to have three. Or is it one? I never could figure it out.

By the way, J - is it true that your middle name is Harold, after your dad?
"Our father which art in heaven, Harold be thy name..."