WWFStern

You said some Bible absurdities and other impossibilities might be chaulked up to narrative fiction meant to tell a story and make a point.

The resurrection tales certainly qualify as absurd and scientifically impossible.

Thus, can they be taken as narrative fiction, or not?

WishboneDawn

Some christians do take them as narrative fiction.

Julian

While it is true that rationalism does not have a good track record historically in determining fact, it is not mutually exclusive with its counterpart, empiricism. However, it hardly matters since both rationalism and empiricism argue solidly against any miraculous event. You are simply equivocating, putting up a smokescreen, to avoid answering the obvious point in the post you quoted. While a forgery is always fiction, fiction is not always forgery. It is all in the presentation. Children's stories are not a problem, unless they are used by organizations to enforce laws and dictate behavior and claimed to be factual. Something which happens in this country on a continual basis.

As for the parables, they are clearly meant to educate, whether they are true or not is besides the point, but I suspect you agree with me on this.

As for the stories in the NT being factual or not, everyone makes a determination on that point, especially the church. Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying...

Julian

WWFStern

I've never heard of a Christian who thought Jesus' alleged resurrection only was metaphorical. To my knowledge, a bedrock Christian belief is that Jesus' brain death reversed itself and he came back to life after dozens of hours of being dead.

There really are "metaphorical resurrectionists"?

WishboneDawn

Yeah. I may be one myself. ReligiousTolerence.org has a page on the subject. John Spong, who's quite popular among some christians, has this to say,'"A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion." {From, 'Ressurestion; Myth or Reality?').

They're out there.

EarlOfLade

I have a feeling that most christians would consider people with that standpoint to be as christians as an atheist is.

WishboneDawn

:huh: Oh well. Some think catholics aren't christian, unitarians aren't christian, christians who support gay rights aren't christian...The list goes on.

EarlOfLade

Exactly!

Most christians can't even tell you what a christian is or who are. Not to mention that thousands of christian sects all claim they have the undisputed truth.

Listening to a christian is like listening to a used car salesman.
The only difference is that I can verify using Kelly Bluebook

WWFStern

Thanks for the clarification and link. The impossibility of Jesus' bodily resurrection always was an insurmountable sticking point for me. Brain death reversal simply isn't possible.

However, I still could not be a Christian due to my disbelief in an eternal essence, or soul. Certainly, all variants of Christianity must believe in a soul, right? Or are there soul-less variants, as well?

WWFStern

From your link and worthy of sharing...

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible.

Finally, common sense!