MAD Poster: DCP Delivers Talk that is not "Relevant"

[_antishock8]

I remember Church members paying around $3.00 for a Know Your Religion lecture when I was younger. I suppose that would equate to about $10.00 these days. Are there LDS lecture circuits in existence that charge attendance fees?

[_EAllusion]

The apologetic cases I've read for the historical "evidences" of the resurrection rest C.S. Lewis-esque Lord, Liar, or Lunatic type reasoning coupled with a rather poor grasp of witness evidence from William Lane Craig, McDowell, etc. They are quite popular in evangelical circles. They're also pretty ridiculous, but I've always thought that if American fundamentalists succeeded in opening the door to creationism in public schools, teaching these arguments in history wouldn't be far behind.

DCP often seems fond of popular fundamentalist evangelical apologetics. I wouldn't be surprised if he went the same route here, but I also would give him the benefit of the doubt by not assuming that's his approach.

Hamblin's argument is interesting. It trades on the fact that their are several different clinical notions of death, from your heart no longer beating for a period of time to total loss of brain function. We don't bring people back from the dead in the sense of bringing them back from total brain death, which is what one would imagine happened to Jesus given the description of events. Obviously, the New Testament doesn't say as it isn't armed with modern clinical definitions of death.

[_Chap]

Hamblin's argument is interesting. It trades on the fact that their are several different clinical notions of death, from your heart no longer beating for a period of time to total loss of brain function. We don't bring people back from the dead in the sense of bringing them back from total brain death, which is what one would imagine happened to Jesus given the description of events. Obviously, the New Testament doesn't say as it isn't armed with modern clinical definitions of death.

If

(a) someone today claims that Jesus was raised from the dead,

but

(b) their use of "dead" does not mean "really, physically dead and gone in a biologically irreversible sense", with the implication that Jesus was more or less as dead as my great-grandfather now is (apart from actually rotting away, which Jesus didn't have time to do)

then

(c) that person is not in my view making the claim that mainstream Christians have believed themselves to be making for the last two thousand years, but is making a considerably less significant assertion.

[_EAllusion]

It's also worth noting that prior to contemporary medicine, it was more common for people to be assumed dead when they really weren't. People on rare occasion would be thought to be dead and seemingly come back to life. Once in a blue moon, one would expect people to legitimately be thought dead and come back from their grave. I'm not saying this is what happened with the historical Jesus or any other mythical stories, but it helps to understand this phenomenon in the context of people believing in mundane ressurection.

[_EAllusion]

Hamblin's argument is interesting. It trades on the fact that their are several different clinical notions of death, from your heart no longer beating for a period of time to total loss of brain function. We don't bring people back from the dead in the sense of bringing them back from total brain death, which is what one would imagine happened to Jesus given the description of events. Obviously, the New Testament doesn't say as it isn't armed with modern clinical definitions of death.

If

(a) someone today claims that Jesus was raised from the dead,

but

(b) their use of "dead" does not mean "really, physically dead and gone in a biologically irreversible sense", with the implication that Jesus was more or less as dead as my great-grandfather now is (apart from actually rotting away, which Jesus didn't have time to do)

then

(c) that person is not in my view making the claim that mainstream Christians have believed themselves to be making for the last two thousand years, but is making a considerably less significant assertion.

That's the thought I had. Though Hamblin's comment isn't necessary. A God obviously could ressurect someone. It's possible in that sense. If someone has trouble believing that a God could do it, atheist or no, they aren't thinking clearly about the possibilities of God, regardless of what humans can do. If they just don't think it likely that a God did ressurect someone, or himself as the case may be, then way to miss the point.

[_Gadianton]

Wow, this is indeed an intriguing event. And it is truly a provocative question as to whether Dr. Peterson has really found his "Precambrian rabbit" so to speak. Frankly, I am not qualified to review his findings.

I think as virtually everyone posting on this thread has indicated in some way or another, the market solution of presenter and attendees was an ankward one. As Dr. Peterson pointed out, his material was quite technical and detailed, fit more for a graduate seminar. Of course, while Mighty Curelom was nearly banned from the board for his "bad assumptions" -- as professor Hamblin put it -- rejecting the argument outright, certainly no one will be chastised for their assumptions of believing Peterson's thesis statement outright with unwavering credulity, letting the presentation strengthen their testimony, as Dr. Peterson put it, even if they weren't able to follow the argument at all.

If Mighty Curelom is supposed to be so "open minded" and questioning of his assumptions, assumptions which as Dr. Peterson suggested, are held by the majority of people today including academics, then I wonder if the attendees of this presentation should equally be required to be open minded and attend a fireside where Mighty Curelom is speaking, and carefully consider his arguments?

At any rate, it appears this "faith-promoting" exercise was a stepping stone toward Dr. Peterson's real goal. I hope that Dr. Peterson will continue down the path he's on. If he can present his findings to the Jesus Seminar and convince them that there is good evidence for Christ's resurrection, not definitive proof, then I will admit the same.

[_solomarineris]

Be sure to stick around for the presentations immediately following Brother Peterson's fireside:

Romulus and Remus--Actually Raised by a She-Wolf?

The Twelve Labors of Hercules--Fact of Fable?

How Did Noah Fit Two of Every Animal on the Ark? Bible Secrets Revealed.

Can a Man Live for Three Days and Three Nights in the Belly of a Whale? Science Says "Yes!"

Quite a biting parody, this! Can you imagine the Mopologists' response?

A cheap and stupid post, MC.

No, a quite typical post. Oh, right; same thing.

here's some evidence that people can get away once in a while with lame cracks at daniel petersen. had you tossed this snark out at someone else you would've earned two days suspension from the board. daniel can handle himself, though, and we'll save your supsension for another day.~hermes

This is the level of stupidity that MAD&b sinks in without exception (not talking 'bout you, DCP)
When heat becomes a little unbearable this Gordittos run away they leave kitchen.
There was nothing inappropriate MC wrote or DCP replied.
How appropriately one expresses her/his thoughts there?
They obviously can't without being harassed by these intellectual midgets.
I'm sure they drink their Xango's before taking over the censorship shift.

[_Mister Scratch]

There was no charge.

Well, that's interesting. Are you sure that there were no "donation collections," or anything of that nature? Did Ed Snow come along for this trip, and did he perhaps solicit contributions without you knowing? I just ask due to bethabara's remarks. Perhaps he was just joking? Or, did he really pay a fee?

Also: what did you make of the criticism you got on the MAD board? Merited? Or not? Do you agree that it would have been just as effective to bear your testimony?

Finally, I'm curious about the motives behind your "project". Do you view this as a missionary effort? Do you hope to convince naysayers that there is real evidence that Christ was literally, physically raised from the dead?

[_The Nehor]

There was no charge.

Well, that's interesting. Are you sure that there were no "donation collections," or anything of that nature? Did Ed Snow come along for this trip, and did he perhaps solicit contributions without you knowing? I just ask due to bethabara's remarks. Perhaps he was just joking? Or, did he really pay a fee?

Also: what did you make of the criticism you got on the MAD board? Merited? Or not? Do you agree that it would have been just as effective to bear your testimony?

Finally, I'm curious about the motives behind your "project". Do you view this as a missionary effort? Do you hope to convince naysayers that there is real evidence that Christ was literally, physically raised from the dead?

After the performance DCP passes around his bowler hat to collect money.

The criticism was unfounded.

The motive is and always has been world domination. It involves LDS apologetics, trained squirrels, and coffee machines that think.

[_Gadianton]

Finally, I'm curious about the motives behind your "project".

I, too, am interested in the new project.

(probably still some years off, as this represents only a portion of a much longer and more complex argument)

I'm wondering if there is a bit of cloak and dagger going on here. At any rate, I believe I can see in part, the grand design behind this new project.