JohnStuartMill wrote:You need a lot less than a polisci degree to see through superstitious hocus-pocus, CC.
Dear poseur,
Whether or not the Resurrection can rightly be described as "superstitious hocus-pocus," the fact remains that the authors of the resurrection accounts wrote as though a resurrection literally occurred. Therefore, there is nothing naïve about evaluating them on that basis.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
So what? The author/s of Exodus wrote as if the parting of the Red Sea literally occurred. The author/s of the Bhagavad Gita wrote as if Krishna literally revealed his true, divine form. The author/s of the Koran wrote as if Allah literally appeared to Mohammed. None of these events actually happened. You're out of your element, Donny.
JohnStuartMill wrote:So what? The author/s of Exodus wrote as if the parting of the Red Sea literally occurred. The author/s of the Bhagavad Gita wrote as if Krishna literally revealed his true, divine form. The author/s of the Koran wrote as if Allah literally appeared to Mohammed. None of these events actually happened. You're out of your element, Donny.
Dear moron,
Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. None of this has anything to do with beastie's comment and my response to it. If an account is presented literally, then there is nothing naïve about reading it literally, whether or not it actually occurred. That was and is my point to beastie.
Quit while you are behind.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
CC, I'm beating up on you because you love to say BS like "Oh, the parting of the Red Sea wasn't intended literally, but the resurrection was!" This is the broader point that beastie is making, and my post was intended to get it right back on track.
Calculus Crusader wrote: If an account is presented literally, then there is nothing naïve about reading it literally, whether or not it actually occurred. That was and is my point to beastie.
Actually, it is pretty naïve, CC. Kafka writes as if Gregor Samsa literally becomes a beetle-like creature. Tolkien writes as if Middle Earth is a real place, complete with a rich history, ancient languages, and so forth. That's one of the reasons why these literary works are compelling: because they seem "real" in some sense.
If you are treating the New Testament as "literal," then your reason for doing so is something other than the way it is presented. Frankly, it would be more persuasive if you said that you prayed about it and received spiritual confirmation. To argue that authorial intent renders the account literally true is a bad idea.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Technically, that's true, but the majority of traditional Christianity seems to read it into the text.
There is nothing naïve about that.
I used the term naïve because that is the term Nehor used. I'm not sure it's the best term. But the fact is that people rising from the dead isn't the way the world works. There is zero empirical evidence that such an event has ever occurred within the history of the world (aside from medical intervention, of course).
JSM is correct in that the point I was making is that one cannot insist a text must be read literally just because it "sounds" literal. I think it is particularly important to remember with past cultures.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Calculus Crusader wrote: If an account is presented literally, then there is nothing naïve about reading it literally, whether or not it actually occurred. That was and is my point to beastie.
Actually, it is pretty naïve, CC. Kafka writes as if Gregor Samsa literally becomes a beetle-like creature. Tolkien writes as if Middle Earth is a real place, complete with a rich history, ancient languages, and so forth. That's one of the reasons why these literary works are compelling: because they seem "real" in some sense.
If you are treating the New Testament as "literal," then your reason for doing so is something other than the way it is presented. Frankly, it would be more persuasive if you said that you prayed about it and received spiritual confirmation. To argue that authorial intent renders the account literally true is a bad idea.
Your inability to distinguish known fiction from accounts that intend to be historical (whether they are correct or not) is not my problem.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
You're right, CC. Your problem is that you're engaging in gross special pleading by asking us to believe in the resurrection and salvation hokum but to disregard all that embarrassing stuff about the world being created in seven days, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, etc.
JohnStuartMill wrote:CC, I'm beating up on you because you love to say b***s*** like "Oh, the parting of the Red Sea wasn't intended literally, but the resurrection was!" This is the broader point that beastie is making, and my post was intended to get it right back on track.
I don't believe I've claimed that the parting of the Red Sea wasn't intended literally. I've stated that I don't think the primordial stuff in the Bible is necessarily historical but those events were supposed to have occurred long before Moses.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
You've claimed that the myth of Jonah and the whale should be taken less seriously than the myth of Jesus being resurrected. The Jonah myth occurred long after Moses, if memory serves me well.