Jesus Christ's Resurrection History or Fiction?
Jesus of course is the primary figure in Christianity. He preached, prophesied and performed miracles. But the most miraculous thing he is ever credited with doing is being raised from the dead.
Now, there are many questions surrounding Jesus, but for the sake of this poll I want to stick to the most extreme claim of Jesus, which is that he died and was raised from the dead.
Regardless of your belief about Christianity and the ideals associated with the Christian god, I want you to focus solely on the claim of resurrection.
1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred?
2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them?
Now, there are many questions surrounding Jesus, but for the sake of this poll I want to stick to the most extreme claim of Jesus, which is that he died and was raised from the dead.
Regardless of your belief about Christianity and the ideals associated with the Christian god, I want you to focus solely on the claim of resurrection.
1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred?
2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them?
Comments (111)
Well, here's the thing. That there was a string of events that convinced the immediate disciples beyond any doubt that the man they had seen crucified was alive is beyond doubt. It is very probable that the first of those events was the discovery of an empty tomb but as the former Bishop of Durham (only recently sadly departed) so memorably pointed out if that's all there was to it Christianity would have been stillborn.
However it is also obvious that the account of those events given in the gospels are, probably quite deliberately ahistorical. That is to say that the resurrected Christ transcends mundane categories. He can be touched by Thomas yet he appears and disappears in ways that suggest something other than corporeality.. He is recognisably the man Jesus in some stories yet he goes completely unrecognised by disciples on the road to Emmaus. So it is never really clear whether the Gospel writers themselves actually believed the resurrection to be physical. Their accounts are never intended to be factual in the usual sense of the world though they do describe real experiential encounters with the living Christ.
So if the question is a base 'did the Resurrection happen?' the answer is yes, no, well possibly, and maybe not. As a purely historical question 'did x happen?' it is simply undecidable. Whichever of the options you present one chooses it can only be a matter of speculation and personal bias.
Now, our faulty understanding of the laws of nature may also result in a misunderstanding of Jesus' resurrection, but I find that the two are intrinsically related; therefore, it would fall under option number 2.
I may be wrong, or I may not be understanding your statement correctly.
What do you think?
Whether Jesus was raised from the dead is a secondary question. The primary question is, "Does God exist?" If God exists, Jesus could have been raised from the dead, because God could put life back into a dead body if he chose to do so. Of course, it is possible that God exists and Jesus wasn't raised from the dead. Maybe the Jews were right: God exists, but the Messiah has not come yet. Jesus was a great guy, but not The One, maybe.
If the Christians were right that God exists, but wrong about Jesus being the Son of God, then they were in deep trouble when the guy they thought was incarnated God (if they actually thought that -- they might not have at the time) was crucified, died, and on the third day was still totally dead. The disaster was Jesus' death, not the lack of a resurrection. He doesn't seem to have had time, as far as we can tell, to build up a deep following to take over for him upon his demise. The 12 apostles and followers had only had Jesus for 3 years--not very long. Even if he was God incarnate, the material Jesus was working with was not the finest grain of wood. Even as the endgame crisis approached, they kept drifting off into la la land.
The Gospels, and Paul's letters, were not written to be literature. Sure, one can read/teach the Gospels and the Old Testament as literature, and some of it is just fine as literature goes, but the Bible is best understood and appreciated as the faithfuls' account of God's actions in the world.
Quoting saw038
If Jesus was resurrected... yes, it was a very scandalous violation of the universe's rules and regulations. How DARE God pull a stunt like that on us -- who does he think he is?
Oh, well, I see ...
I don't think God exists, and therefore I can't think God raised Jesus from the grave. If I were changed back into thinking that God does exist, then it would be quite possible to believe that For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
I think I'm not saying that. The problem with the resurrection is exactly the same as with every other event in the life of Jesus, namely that we simply cannot reach beyond the early Christian experience of a living Christ. That's why I was careful to use the word ahistorical about the Gospel accounts. The Gospel writers had absolutely no interest in whether the stories carried in the traditions of their churches were accurate accounts of actual events. They did not waste time on fact checking. Their only interest is in how the stories illustrate, expand, and authenticate their immanent experience of God the Son who had died for their sins and was now alive.
The resurrection of Christ is in every sense real for the Gospel writers in the present moment and that is what they are writing about. For them the crucifixion and resurrection is a new contemporary event every day reinforced by the constant revisiting in the Eucharist and Baptisms. It is therefore fruitless to go to the Gospels in search of verification of actual events which happened (or didn't) as much as 90 years into the writers' past. In every sense the resurrection is beyond the reach of historical investigation. It is. if you like, the Schrodinger's Cat of history in a box that can never be opened.
I don't think the historicity can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that is an element of the story - it is not something that can be put beyond all doubt. However, I have realised that I believe in the historicity of the resurrection. Part of the reason for that is that while I think the Bible is mythological in some respects, I can't accept that Christianity was grounded on myth, pure and simple.
And also, as I'm not wedded to physicalism, I have a different view of what can be considered the domain of possibility.
Why would you say this? It appears like very little is known about the actual process whereby Jesus was resurrected. Much that is said about this appears to be unsubstantiated speculation. So if one doesn't properly understand what is meant by "resurrected", when people say "Jesus was resurrected", it could be the case that this individual believes that "resurrected" necessarily implies that the laws of nature were transcended, when perhaps "resurrected" wasn't being used in that way.
Quoting saw038
This is another possibility as well. We may understand the laws of nature in such a way that we would define "resurrection", as logically impossible. This would mean that we assume premises of "laws of nature", and we define "resurrection" in such a way that it contradicts these premises. This falls into option #2. But if these "laws of nature" are incorrect, then "resurrection", as defined, might not actually be physically impossible. To maintain the position, that resurrection is impossible, we would have to correctly identify the applicable laws of nature, and redefine "resurrection", to maintain the logical impossibility.
I think that's what W was saying, though I'm thinking he sees it as more of a bad thing. We've been having quite the discussion in the "Mysticism" thread. I like to take Jesus as a literary character and a symbol that is lit by the kind of "primordial image" that Jung writes about. Nietzsche and Stirner are famous atheists, yet their conceptions of Christ as a kind of personality are profound. It's clear that their own "atheistic" work (on the notions of radical freedom and joy in this world) is an evolution of the concept of Christ.
For me, anyway, there's a huge difference between Jesus as symbol and Jesus as the sort of being that can wash away "sin" and provide an afterlife. I believe in crime, a legal term, but not in sin, which is sometimes understood as a "magical" something that gets one tortured in the afterlife. I completely reject the "magic" and the "torture" and the "afterlife." Now if there really was a Jesus like there was a Socrates, I think the story of his teaching has been enriched by symbolism that is often taken literally. The death and resurrection were imported from older "mystery cults." Well, he could have been executed, but this would fit so conveniently into Mithra's story. As old as Christianity is, there are far older religions that it is largely a blend of. Anyway, (to me) this historical Jesus doesn't matter much, if he existed, but that's because I have a "heretical" understanding that views it as continuing into some of the great atheistic philosophers.
Those who believe in miracles thousands of years ago are probably going to want to "freeze" Christianity at the Gospels, which in the less symbolic realm of philosophy would be like having stopped with Plato.
You state that as a fact which it is not. The weight of modern scholarship is very much against you on this point.
Hundreds of attempts at constructing a biography of Jesus were written post-Enlightenment by Deists and mainstream theologians alike. The skewering given to these efforts by Albert Schweitzer's The Quest For The Historical Jesus put a rather abrupt stop to all of that nonsense, at least in academic study.
Is there a contemporary account of Jesus?
Not that we know of but what's that got to do with the price of bread?
Well that's what I've read, but it really doesn't matter to me. I understand the Gospels symbolically. I'd guess that people who believe in it literally are still getting the "symbolic" potency (which helps fasten the belief against "common sense.")
Yes. It's already just scientism and politics once we leave the guts and the heart. Religion is all too often (in my view) bad metaphysics, clumsy politics. We give a damn about it in the first place for "irrational" reasons. But then we obsess over possessing knowledge or science of something objective. All the same, we flee into the assertion that it's somehow non-empirical objective truth if challenged by the scientist or skeptic. But whence this objectivity? Belief and intuition, yes. We certainly believe things that others refuse to. But a science of such intuitions? propositions that cannot be falsified? It would maybe be better to hear some confessions of faith. "I can't prove X to you, but I believe X. And I can understand why maybe you don't." It's odd how religion tends to mimic the structure of its "destroyer" science. It confesses thereby its submission to the rational and the respectable. (I personally find an intersection of the religious and the rational/respectable that works for me. Others won't do this, in my view, because they want too much from religion. They don't want any freedom left over to be responsible for. Jesus must be science and philosophy and politics all at the same time, rather than that center of us that transcends them all.)
That's true. I don't want to insult believers. I do think it's acceptable to profess one's lack of belief though, and to reason from that -- at least in this context.
It seems to me that the belief or intuition that life continues beyond this life, and that events here have a significance that cannot be expressed wholly in terms of the interests of the temporal self in what was, is or will be "here/ now", however that belief or intuition is conceived, can impart a dimension and species of meaning to life, that simply cannot be found in the standpoint of the human as radically finite.
Using religions or philosophies, as you suggest, just for comfort, is probably a losing strategy. I suspect that kind of mere non-radically-transformative faith (as opposed to real Faith) will dwindle to trivial insignificance in the face of prolonged extreme suffering or impending death.
For me it's a collision of the infinite and the radically finite. There's an intuition of something "deathless" , "eternal","primordial", radically at home (a son of "God"=reality), at the center of us which allows the "surface" to be radically finite. "The fire and the rose are one." (T S Eliot).
Iconoclasm clears away our idolatry and our insistence that religion be more than subjectivity. We crave to crystallize our mortal selves as imperishable authority or knowledge, hiding from the fire and the rose at the same time. Yet we only "fall" into this self-conscious alienation now and then. Quite often we are living in creative play and open-hearted-ness without giving it much thought. We aren't mortal when we love and play. Not for ourselves. That loveis the "eternity." I think this includes a healthy self-love, which is often (counter-productively) demonized by sacred or self-conscious altruism, a narcissism that doesn't recognize itself as such.
Just my 2 cents, of course. I just don't know if these marks and noises will "click" for others. Is there a universal human nature? Or does it just feel that way sometimes?
(Hence what I call 'handrail materialism' - the adoption of materialism as an attitude because it gives you something to hang onto in the face of uncertainty.)
I think a part of spirituality is the ability to live with the unknown - to accept the idea that nobody really knows about these matters, rather than accepting the implied authority of science (or scientism) in respect of something it really has no idea of.
True.
Quoting Wayfarer
Here is where I think you conflate "commonsense" and materialism. Most of us humans don't traffic much with the "isms" of the intellectuals. You and I do, but we're strange like that. We want to give an account, possess and project knowledge. But most just live in the world and see their loved ones die and not come back. Call this induction or whatever, but we form that idea that death is final, provided with so very few counterexamples. Ask yourself whether you expect any of those you know to have died to knock on your door tonight? Does that make you a materialist? Would you believe a stranger who said he could fly, but only when no one was looking? I think it's just a psychological fact that we expect "more of the same." This is mostly in the "manifest image" and not in the ghostly realm of bloodless isms.
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree. Live with the unknown. Don't make it about knowledge. That's just the same, sad metaphysical quest for the magic word. And yet there are words that liberate us from magic words...ladders to be thrown away... Or that's how I see it..
Nevertheless, Jesus does stand out in certain ways, I mean if he didn't we wouldn't be talking about him 2,000 years later.
To me fact or fiction the philosophical principles he taught are profound (maybe not unique, but profound). They are ethical ways of living and interacting with others.
This may be related but somewhat off topic, but I find it interesting how I say that my heart is a part of me, but I never would say I am my heart; it beats without my thought, and same with my breathing.
My point is that it seems interesting that we associate this idea of 'I' with a very limited perspective of the totality that we occupy (our bodies).
From a more naturalistic point of view, I can. There is no being 100% sure (even about this claim). Truth is estimated by likelihood.
And in fact we do use "seems to me" to be a preliminary for something. It seems to you that my argument is wrong. It does not seem this way to me.
For me, the problem is that the New Testament is a massively mixed message. The book itself contains both genius and madness. I keep reworking my own "synthesis" of this book with all of the many other great books out there.
I go back to it with these other "scriptures" in my hand. None of these scriptures are sacred or authoritative. That, to me, is the highest "thing" that any of them point at. But until that vision of nothing-is-sacred lights up in one's heart and mind, there is (as I see it) always the tendency of the self to glue itself to something outside, beyond, and above itself. But our "self" wants recognition, so what it glues itself to is above others too, whether they like it or not. This is bigger than religion proper. It's also everywhere in politics and philosophy. Personality itself is a violence. But accusing it for being that way is to indulge in the same sort of righteous violence. Instead one just has a vision of the game and can occasionally have a cup of lemonade far above the battlefield. That's the general structure that my personal reading of the N.T. recognizes: "Christ is the end of the law," where the "law" is also Stirner-the-ghostbuster's "sacred." Christ is (an envisioner and vision of) the end of that which is sacred and therefore alien to the living-dying self. The magic/hidden word is now incarnate, which is to say mortal flesh that participates in a universal re-framed as primordial (as deep as the genitals) rather than in the realm of embattled personality ("idolatry"). Theidea of the "primordial" can clearly function as an idol, but I have to splash around in the realm of symbols if I want to say anything at all.
I have a sense of humor about this. I have yet to meet anyone who sees it all that much along these lines --although I genuinely believe that I could have one hell of a cup of coffee and a walk by the river with Caspar (Stirner) in particular. Infinite jest.
Thank heavens for small mercies. X-)
I am sure 'religion' recognizes that, in fact, is built around it. Certainly, that insight is often corrupted and distorted, but it's present in the texts. 'He who saves his own life will lose it...'
There are millions around the world that could use this wealth for food or shelter.
Do you think that this is a form of worshipping false idols?
You didn't ask me, but more to the point, the luxuries of the church building for the Christian is better addressed by Mathew 6:19-21, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal... because where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
The edifice complex.
Many churches become real estate operations because as young churches they needed space to grow and run their programs. Then they matured, and over time tended to shrink. Now the congregation is small, and the needs of the building (which has become both an old "treasure" and a damned nuisance) soaks up most of their resources.
This is the American situation: many denominations, many congregations covering the same territory, and secularization has left many a church building empty. The state is not responsible in any way for the maintenance of churches.
There are solutions, but very, very few congregations are willing to merge. They don't want to share space, either, most of the time. Even churches in the same denomination have difficulty cooperating in minor ways, never mind nearby churches in different denominations.
Yes, it is a sort of idolatry.
I'm having fun. It's the "seriousness of a child at play." I really don't mean to offend, but perhaps the imp of the perverse grabs the steering wheel now and then. I'm a smiley joker in person.
Quoting Wayfarer
Indeed, religion speaks of the sinful ego and then builds institutions and dogma with which folks passionately identify with. This itself can be framed as the "seeking to save one's life." There's also the humorous fact that the maxim itself is just advice on how to (paradoxically) save one's life.
To me it's just a disaster to condemn rather than sublimate egoism. In Christianity we supposedly have the "man-god" to imitate, who said that he was the way, the life, the truth, etc. If the incarnation isn't personal and grand, then what's it all about? Conservative politics? Kneeling to an idea? (But like I said, I'm having fun. This is the place to let it all hang out..)
By "idolatry" I just mean a state of mind, a clinging to or identifying with some concept as sacred and universal. As I see it, earnestly accusing "idolatry" is to practice it.
But that presumes there *is* a moon.
I didn't say that we don't take "seems to me" as a preliminary, I said we don't take it as justification.
Now it seems to me, like you haven't produced an argument. You have simply asserted that the existence of a soul is "highly unlikely", without justifying this claim. I receive this statement as a proposition. I can either accept it as a premise, and proceed toward wherever the logic you produce takes me, or I can ask you to justify your proposition. I like to see propositions justified before proceeding, otherwise the logical process may be a meaningless waste of time. If the only reason for your proposition is that such a premise is necessary for you to reach the desired conclusion, then you are begging the question. That is why I ask for justification of such propositions before accepting them as premises.
Quoting darthbarracuda
It does not justify your proposition to say that from my "point of view", a naturalistic one, the proposition is self-evident, because now what is required is a justification of your point of view. If by "naturalistic", you mean that all things are natural, I would dismiss this point of view as unjustified, because it excludes the possibility of anything artificial. And isn't your "point of view" itself artificial? If your claim is that the distinction between artificial and natural should not be upheld, then I'd like to see this justified.
There are many people who don't conclude that the limited perspective given to us by science and the fashion for scientism based common thought, is the reality. I live in a predominantly irreligious community, I wouldn't say atheist, but perhaps agnostic. Many of these people readily consider reincarnation, souls and the supernatural as a possibility. There is a predominant predisposition that such cannot be determined either way and folk just get on with their lives.
Actually it is only in recent history in the west that there are a sizeable number of folk who don't take an afterlife, or reincarnation (and from there perhaps resurrection) as a possibility.
I think idolatry is a key problem too. I just don't think contemporary Christian idolatry is directed toward 'graven images', statuary, and the like. The OT prohibition on graven images was a reaction to their contemporaries, Baal worshippers and others, who thought their gods and the graven images were one and the same -- the way some Hindus think that the god and the statue of the god in a temple are one and the same. The statues of the Virgin Mary or the four Evangelists or whoever are visual references, not representations. (And if somebody didn't explain who the statue was of, a lot of people wouldn't know whether it was St. John, Aristotle, or their congressman.
The idolatry of modern Christians is the emotional and capital investment in bricks and mortar. "This church is us and God's house at the same time. God lives here. We are on good terms with God here. Without this edifice which we maintain, God would be homeless, and so would our faith. Maintaining and beautifying this structure is the heart of our faith, the most important thing we do here."
No Christian would articulate such an idea, of course, but if you look at church budgets, church fundraising efforts, church giving -- the building, the organ, the stained glass windows, etc. -- are the heart of concern. That is an idolatry.
Most churches send money to food shelves, world missions, Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, etc. but it's a pittance compared to the expenditures on building and it's contents.
The idolatry is revealed in the action, not in a superstition about graven images.
Of course, I think some philosophers who were trained as philosophers suck, too, but that's another story.
Do you think the idea that concepts are nonphysical existents, is incoherent? Why then is this idea taught to us in university, in philosophy classes? It never appeared incoherent to me when it was taught to me in school. Do you think that philosophy, in general, is incoherent, because this appears to be one of the fundamental principles taught in philosophy?
Do you have any respect for philosophy whatsoever Terrapin?
I would not conflate physical truth with theological truth. These are two different lenses, one that has to do with science's view of the world and the other with a community's faith/belief, while I am not saying there can't be communication & interchange between the two, trying to understand one by use of the other is, I think, a mistake.
incidentally, I have told this anecdote before - some years back, there was a sensational news story that an archeologist claimed to have found physical remnants of Jesus. (in the form of an ossuary, although it was discredited very quickly).We had a rather heated dinner-table conversation about this alleged fact, during which I said, 'surely you can see if this were true, it would undermine the whole basis of Christianity'. I was amazed to hear that nobody else at the table could see why that might be. 'Surely', they said, ' "Jesus' message" is still the same'. But I said, no Christian could accept that - for which I had a cup of tea thrown over me!
It was at that exact point I realised that I am probably still Christian.
Jesus :-#
Respect?..understanding?.. what does it matter?...it's all just personal opinions, anyway...Jesus!
:-}. :s
I think that Mormons believe Jesus came back from heaven and settled in North America with his followers. Perhaps they know where his remains are.
Do you think that the philosophy taught in universities is just "personal opinions"? If so, couldn't we say that the science taught in universities is just personal opinions as well?
It was an ironic statement, MU.
Acquiring a degree is no guarantee that one won't believe ridiculous $h|t, it's not a guarantee that one will even have or retain a grasp of the fundamental conventions of the discipline in question (for example, scientists talking about proving empirical claims), and it certainly is no guarantee that one will have any acumen in a field other than one's degree field.
But certainly some people do some good work that deserves respect in my opinion. I have a list of some of the philosophers I tend to be more fond of on my profile here.
I've been directly exposed to Catholicism and Pentacostal slain-in-the-spirit Christianity. I was told as child of a place of eternal torture created by loving God. I could read the good book myself and see that only a tiny minority would be spared the greatest sadistic fantasy thinkable. Adults are rarely monstrous. They are good at compartmentalizing and only half-believing these tales. God (as presented crudely) is like Santa Clause for grownups. He knows if you've been bad or good. Then there's the homophobia, the sexism, etc. It's very strange that ancient texts should be taken so literally by those who work in skyscrapers and heat their dinners in microwaves.
Never said you did, but let's not pretend that religion has been so innocent.
Actually in a way I don't see why that should make any difference. Science doesn't tell us anything about the mystery of existence itself. If anything, to the contrary, the kind of modern scientific prejudice that says that all realities must be empirical realities, might be seen to produce more of a tendency toward a simplistic fundamentalism when it comes to religious beliefs as well as scientific ones.
Yes indeed 8-)
I agree that we can err on the other side, too. But I wonder whether the sophisticated defender of religion really wants to hang out with an evangelical voting for Trump, for instance. Worse, you have people holding up "God hates f*gs" signs. They don't have the guts to hate in their own name. That's the sort of dude they worship, and they want their big guy to toss strangers in a lake of fire for getting off the way that their ancient instruction manual, inherited thoughtlessly and apparently by chance, prohibits.
I never said otherwise. The Incarnation idea is profound. Generally, religious myth is profound. It's a deep well, worth serious consideration. But it's valuable to see how religion could look exclusively "bad" to someone not yet exposed to more sophisticated traditions/interpretations. I was really into T.S. Eliot and Auden (in their Christian phases) as my cruder notions of God were fading. I knew there was still something in the tradition. These great poets were looking for that, holding to that.
I agree, I think that people carrying such signs are appallingly gutless maggots who themselves deserve eternally recurring buggery at 1,000.000,000 degrees centigrade [nah, just kidding]). (Think Heironymous Bosch on hyper-crystal meth for a depiction of this). I love a wee bit of lurid imagery; you don't think it is a sin, do you? Could God be that cavilling?
Re your response to Wayfarer; I think the tradition is still as inexhaustible as it ever was. Right now I am reading a truly astonishing work by an anonymous 20th C Catholic author; it's called Meditation on the Tarot. I can't express how utterly inspired, profound and brilliant I think this book is. It may very well be the best book I have ever read.
@Hoo - will respond later, I'm *supposed* to be working.
Well, hell, I may have to look into that book myself. (I'll google it now) I love Bosch.
On the maggots: I despise their position, but I remember being raised around racism and homophobia. It's the air one breaths. There's no awareness of the cruelty one participates in, especially if the black people are just on the news and the gay people are shrewd enough to hide or move away. At my small town high school, gay slurs were the most aggressive insult. You just had to fight at that point or...fufill the "prophecy" that you were d*ckless. I'm very fascinated by this sex/power connection and the "religion" of being a Man (not being a woman, and yet desiring one exclusively). How does even porn or fantasy intersect with the sacred? I like this about Norman O. Brown,a prudently living man who was in theory "polymorphously perverse." Camille Paglia reads Western literature and art as a sort of flight from the Mother. Jung reads the cross as a matrix or mother. Hence my association of Christ with primal energies (an ocean of ancient blood). I think of the two Mary's at the foot of the cross (symbolically) the mother and the prostitute.
Because art seeks to reveal and it applies itself to this in a magical manner.
One has to demechanize to become a mage. For sacred magic is through and through life --that life which is revealed in the Mystery of Blood....It is the fullness of voice with which sacred magic is concerned; it is the voice full of blood; it is the blood become voice. It is the being in which there is nothing mechanical and which is entirely living.
[/quote]
Wow, this is my cup of tea, man. The blood become voice! The "demechanization" of the spiritual...
This is the Amazon link to the Hoeller book: https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Pilgrimage-Kabbalistic-Meditations-Tarot/dp/0835608395
And here is the link to the anonymous book: https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=695RNJG1MFQGX4NA05P8
Yeah, I know what you mean; and that's why I said "Nah, just kidding". I just like to make dumb, lurid, inflammatory jokes sometimes...a personal failing, I suppose...
O:)
Oh, of course. I wasn't trying to accuse you or anything. It's just strange to contemplate how badly programmed we can be by our home communities that were themselves so programmed. I brought the books into my book-less home as young, alienated, precocious lad. What a difference it can make to learn to read, pick out one's own books, follow the string. Can anything beat the drama of a sequence of "dangerous" ideas? I've felt pretty ripe for awhile. Life is better these days. But I can imagine the thrill of living it all again, this journey of self-consciousness and liberation. That alone helps justify death. "Play the scary drama again, please, and wipe my memory. " (But not yet!)
Imagine this. A demon or a god tells you that you are going to die in 24 hours. You have that time to think over whether you want to do it all again, every moment, with memory wiped. I imagine that 24 hours the second time around, when one knows that one had chose it all before. (Close to Nietzsche, of course, but I pondered this on a late night walk and it had a new vividness.)
I am confused as to which book you are referring to Wayfarer. That certainly doesn't sound like it comes from Meditation on the Tarot, which is the only "latter' in the post you are apparently responding to. :s
//it is there - p 212 - thanks for reminding me to finish the book!//
Correction - that passage is similar but not identical
There's no shortage of prejudice in the wold. And you demonstrate it well. Unless another's belief feels right to you, you deem it absurd nonsense.
Quoting John
Terrapin doesn't seem to think so.
Especially in the sense you're using that term, I agree with you. I don't believe that a lack of bias is possible. That's an upshot of my ontological "perspectivalism" or "reference pointism."
I deem things absurd or nonsense when I believe that they're incoherent, basically. It's not at all the case that just in case I disagree with something, I think it's incoherent. But some things I believe are incoherent.
Well that's a nice way of rationalizing being prejudiced, by saying that you don't believe a lack of bias is possible. I suppose you could rationalize any form of immorality in this way, by saying that you don't believe restraining from such an immoral act is possible.
Quoting Terrapin Station
So you're saying that you believe things which are incoherent, and also, incoherent things you deem as absurd, and nonsense. Why do you choose to believe things which you deem as absurd, or nonsense?
Impossible to say.
Quoting saw038
Impossible to say.
Option 3: The resurrection of Jesus is a component of faith - faith in the written testimony found in the Bible. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and walked again - by faith. I'm not too concerned about things that I cannot know - how this happened, what was the mechanism, whether there is undeniable proof of it etc. It's called faith for a reason.
And before anyone hackles with this - remember, you want to know. I don't. Knowing won't bring me bread tomorrow. Neither will it help me treat others more fairly, or make society more just, nor yet improve the condition of my soul. But I do want to believe. Why? Well I find it to be a very beautiful story - as I said before, the most beautiful that can be told. It inspires me - it does improve the condition of my soul. And that's that.
I googled that passage you quoted, and referred to as a 'gem' (I must presume you were being ironical) to see if I could found out where it came from. It is from Sam Harris. No wonder I disliked what it said and felt it could not come from Meditation on the Tarot!
Wonder upon wonder! For once we agree!
Yes when I googled it that is where I found it as well. Immediately prior to quoting the passage the author writes: "Let us place our hand on a copy of Sam Harris's The End of Faith, and solemnly affirm:" so in my cursory reading I mistakenly thought he was quoting Sam Harris.
The original passage in Meditations on the Tarot, though, is given, not as Thomberg's own philosophical view, but as his formulation of the philosophy underpinning science. Thomberg writes, immediately before the passage,
"What. therefore, are the dogmas of the scientific faith? The following is the scientific creed:"
I agree it would be a major undertaking to read the whole book, but I think much may be gained by reading and meditating upon the individual 'letters'. Was the book you already had in your possession that book, or the Hoellor book, by the way? If the latter, is it in any way comparable to the anonymous text?
Sure, and it's a fact that no human being is morally perfect, but that doesn't prevent us from trying not to be immoral. You are simply rationalizing bad behaviour by claiming that it is a fact that no one is perfect. Why don't you just admit that you do not believe that being prejudiced is wrong, that you think it's good, and we should all try to be this way?
Quoting Terrapin Station
This is what you said:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Clearly your last sentence says that you believe some incoherent things, not that some things believed by others, you believe to be incoherent. I suggest that you quit attacking my reading skills, and pay some attention to your own writing skills. If you didn't say what you meant to say, so that I misunderstood you, that's not my fault.
Furthermore, to truly determine whether a belief is incoherent requires understanding the conceptual structure which the belief exists within, the thought process which produced the belief. It does not suffice to say that the belief "feels", or "seems" to be incoherent, simply because it is inconsistent with your own beliefs. This does not constitute incoherency. The conceptual structure within which the belief exists must be understood in order to designate the belief as coherent or not. The belief must be incoherent within the conceptual structure which it exists, not simply inconsistent with your own belief. That is why you cannot determine incoherency by how a work "feels" to you. That is simply an expression of prejudice.
It is probably the case that you do, in fact, make philosophical decisions based on what you feel is good. This isn't a bug in you, it's a feature of human beings. Emotion WILL affect how we think whether we like it or not.
We are not exactly slaves to our feelings; feelings can be overridden, but overriding a feeling means that we have to deal with the feeling, and even in dealing with what we think is an emotional distortion, our thinking may be further affected by emotion.
Emotions are part of the way we think. We can't separate them out. We just have to deal with them.
That's not true at all, we can make judgements by referring to principles, such as moral principles. And often the principles will send us in a direction which is contrary to how we feel, like when I want to do something, but know that I should do something else. Perhaps you make your evaluative assessments based on how you feel, I always try to take the time to find the proper principles to refer to. We're two different people. Speak for yourself, and don't try to tell me how I proceed in making evaluative assessments unless you have some justification for your assertions.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure, emotion always "affects" the way that we think. But this does not mean that decisions are based on what you feel. The base of something, and to affect something are two distinct things. So how I feel may affect my choice of principles to refer to in making a philosophical decision, but this does not mean that my decision is based on what I "feel is good". In fact, most philosophical decisions which I make require days of rumination, and this time period mitigates the fluctuations in thought caused by feelings. Avoiding haste in important decisions helps to reduce the affects of feelings so that I can determine the appropriate principles.
Quoting Bitter CrankI don't have much difficulty dealing with emotions in respect to philosophical decisions. I take my time, and think things through. In some other situations, it is more difficult to deal with the emotions.
If this world is the best a GOD could do, then he failed horribly. However considering we have free will it is not any GOD's fault that we live like we do today. We are the only responsible beings for what our planet is going through, our lives, our society.
However I cannot hide from the beauty of life and creation itself, and all the wonders it brings, and I will always be confident that there is something better then us that is responsible for all existence. We are a mere manifestation of the universe in the quest of aquiring experience that gets hold in the universal consciousness cup :)
The curent lives we live are our own projection of how we should live, after we followed the plan more or less. If you ain't happy who keeps you from being? Could it be .... you ? :)
Probably. We also don't know how much of the bible that was meant as stories to deliver a message, rather than accounts of something real. With thousands of revisions throughout history, it's like the telephone child's play, in which you whisper in the ear of one person and that person does the same to the next and so on and then the last person says the message. That, in book form is the bible and that means a lot of stuff has gone missing and got scrambled throughout it's history.
Quoting saw038
There's nothing that suggests this or supports this.
Another interesting thing is that almost every single well known figure throughout history has numerous accounts of records about their existence, Jesus only has the bible. If we accept that the bible can't prove the validity of itself, since that's a form of fallacy, then the evidence of him even existing seems seriously lacking. Did he exist at all? If we can't use the bible to prove the bible, then there's nothing to prove he existed. What if the teachings were something by a group of people and to make it easier to communicate to others, it was combined into a story of one singular person. The resurrection might then not have been physical, but about the teachings, that some of the group died, but the teachings was resurrected and passed on.
But I can't see any rational things supporting his death and resurrection or even his existence in history. I think the bible is being taken way too literary and that gets in the way of actually knowing what happened during the time of Jesus.
I also think our calculation of time should be counted by the start of civilisation and not a person that may or may not have existed and probably never have been birthed, died or resurrected. This year is the 12018:th year of our civilisation, loosely calculated.
Sure, that's why we use logical thinking, deduction / induction and proper argumentation in order to reach conclusions that aren't influenced by our emotions. Same goes for science, which aren't relying on emotions. If people just say their opinions, then yes, they can't get passed their emotions, but philosophy has powerful dialectic tools for arguing passed emotional responses.
The problem with this argument is that the Bible is a collection of writings, not one single writing by one single person. When we collect together a number of different accounts of the same event, and they corroborate each other, it may be argued that they prove the validity of each other. Such proof can never be absolutely conclusive though, as is evident from conspiracy.
Since the bible has been revised many times, even in it's entirety, as well as changed according to the norms of the times in which it was changed, it cannot validate itself since it's corrupted by the process. There are no facts to back up the claims, like when we read about historical events that are documented and that can actually be backed up. Claims of somethings existence cannot be validated by merely saying that a lot of people wrote the same book and that proves that it's true.
It's too corruptible and there's not enough evidence beside it to be able to confirm anything. It also becomes a fallacy in that it presents premises that's assumed true in order to conclude that itself is true.
False dichotomy. The NT provides a basis for inferring the development of Christian beliefs, including the belief in a "resurrection." The basis of the belief in the resurrection is almost certainly not a work of "literature" - but was the consequence of experiences by some of Jesus' followers after his death. The nature of those experiences is a subject of speculation. The fact that some of his committed followers believed Jesus had (in some vague way) conquered death does not serve as evidence that he actually did. A Christian is free to continue believing it, since it can't be disproven - but the data is woefully inadequate to make a compelling case for it having occurred.