Slate Refers to Mormonism's "Foundational Whoppers"

[_Milesius]

...It's interesting that talking donkeys are just as likely as a man coming back from the dead 2000 years ago.

Sorry but no.

[_Milesius]

First, this is not true. I don't believe in talking donkeys and snakes.

I don't either because they lack the anatomical apparati (or anything close) to speak. However, the veracity of Christianity does not depend on a talking snake or a talking donkey. By way of contrast, the transparent fraud you believe in absolutely requires you to accept things that are fundamentally absurd/impossible.

I don't believe that Jesus flew up to heaven

The point is that he returned to God the Father. Luke explained that in terms of ancient cosmology, which was the only cosmology available to him.

and teleported into a room with locked doors.

I don't have a problem with that.

I don't believe that Moses split a sea in half.

I don't really have a problem with that either.

[_Milesius]

Talking donkeys and snakes can be dismissed based on the fact the notion is completely and totally precluded by all relevant natural laws, but the resurrection of a guy who had been tortured to death and buried for three days is, um, not to be dismissed on the same grounds? I am not just being snarky here. I'd like to hear how the resurrection is not at least as violative of natural laws as talking snakes and donkeys.

Because there is no "natural law" that precludes the resurrection of Jesus by God. By way of contrast, as I just wrote in another post, donkeys and snakes lack the anatomical apparati to speak and while I am not sure any of us knows exactly what anatomical transformations would be required to give either the ability to speak, I think it is safe to say that they would be of such a magnitude that the resultant creatures would cease to be snakes and donkeys.

Quod erat demonstrandum

[_sock puppet]

Talking donkeys and snakes can be dismissed based on the fact the notion is completely and totally precluded by all relevant natural laws, but the resurrection of a guy who had been tortured to death and buried for three days is, um, not to be dismissed on the same grounds? I am not just being snarky here. I'd like to hear how the resurrection is not at least as violative of natural laws as talking snakes and donkeys.

Because there is no "natural law" that precludes the resurrection of Jesus by God. By way of contrast, as I just wrote in another post, donkeys and snakes lack the anatomical apparati to speak and while I am not sure any of us knows exactly what anatomical transformations would be required to give either the ability to speak, I think it is safe to say that they would be of such a magnitude that the resultant creatures would cease to be snakes and donkeys.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Just as donkeys and snakes lack the anatomical apparati to speak, a dead human body lacks the physiological ability to resurrect as alive.

[_Milesius]

Talking donkeys and snakes can be dismissed based on the fact the notion is completely and totally precluded by all relevant natural laws, but the resurrection of a guy who had been tortured to death and buried for three days is, um, not to be dismissed on the same grounds? I am not just being snarky here. I'd like to hear how the resurrection is not at least as violative of natural laws as talking snakes and donkeys.

I don't reconcile the two. I don't claim that that particular belief is empirically justified. It's not. I believe it because of personal experiences that I have had. I'm aware that I accept on faith a claim that is precluded by the empirical evidence...

The resurrection of Mormon Jesus is precluded by the empirical evidence, since the empirical evidence dictates that Mormonism is a transparent fraud, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not.

[_Milesius]

Just as donkeys and snakes lack the anatomical apparati to speak, a dead human body lacks the physiological ability to resurrect as alive.

Yes, that is where divine intervention comes in.

[_sock puppet]

Just as donkeys and snakes lack the anatomical apparati to speak, a dead human body lacks the physiological ability to resurrect as alive.

Yes, that is where divine intervention comes in.

And the Old Testament says god caused the donkey to speak to balaam. If divine intervention can cause one to overcome the natural limitations, why not the other?

[_Milesius]

Yes, that is where divine intervention comes in.

And the Old Testament says god caused the donkey to speak to balaam. If divine intervention can cause one to overcome the natural limitations, why not the other?

As I wrote previously, I think I am justified in stating that the anatomical transformations involved would produce creatures that were unrecognizable as snakes or donkeys. And the narratives lack any reference to great anatomical transformations. (Except the snake, which was cursed to slither as punishment but that has nothing to do with the ability to speak.)

[_Themis]

...It's interesting that talking donkeys are just as likely as a man coming back from the dead 2000 years ago.

Sorry but no.

Well be specific on how one has a better chance of happening then the other.

[_DrW]

(Except the snake, which was cursed to slither as punishment but that has nothing to do with the ability to speak.)

Really?

Snakes slither because they were cursed?

How do you imagine they managed to move around before this unfortunate event in their evolution?