Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-19-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Toto, you want to argue about whether Christ was Resurrected. I don't know and I don't care. I assume he wasn't.

Nor do I know much about the gospels (I've read 'em, but that that's about it). However, this much I do know: they are not "pieces of fiction" if one uses literary terms with even the slightest modicum of precision.

What evidence do you have of that assertion? How bold do you have to be to make such a confident claim about something you don't know much about?

From Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historic Jesus:

Quote:

But that any of our Evangelists was an eyewitness, or stood in such relations with eyewitnesses as to make the intrusion of myth unthinkable, is a thesis which there is no extant evidence sufficient to prove. Even though the earthly life of the Lord falls within historic times, and even if only a generation be assumed to have elapsed between His death and the composition of the Gospels; such a period would be sufficient to allow the historical material to become intermixed with myth. No sooner is a great man dead than legend is busy with his life.

TySixtus · 01-19-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Toto, you want to argue about whether Christ was Resurrected. I don't know and I don't care. I assume he wasn't.

Nor do I know much about the gospels (I've read 'em, but that that's about it). However, this much I do know: they are not "pieces of fiction" if one uses literary terms with even the slightest modicum of precision.

If something is made up, and it isn't "fiction", then what is it?

Ty

BDS · 01-19-2006, 03:14 PM

It depends who "makes it up". In general myths are not "works of fiction". Native speakers generally call their "myths" by the same word they use for "histories", not by the word they use for "novel" or "fairy tale" or "fiction".

Christians, of course, say the same about the gospels. The authors of works of fiction concede that they made them up. The authors of the gospels did not. In fact, I assume the authors of the gospels DIDN'T "make them up". They repeated stories told them by others I would not call The Iliad a "work of fiction" either.

TySixtus · 01-19-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

It depends who "makes it up". In general myths are not "works of fiction". Native speakers generally call their "myths" by the same word they use for "histories", not by the word they use for "novel" or "fairy tale" or "fiction".

Fair enough. But when dealing with how the world works, mythology is in no way more correct than "fiction" or "lie". Mythology doesn't present a correct scientific view of the world. Now it may present a (socially) correct view on morality, or happiness, or theology, but that's not important to this discussion.

The primary question is: Did the Ressurection happen? Part of that question is "Is it feasible for the Ressurection to have happened?"

Mythology has no place here. You are committing a category error. Look, BDS, I've read Joseph Campbell, too. And while I have a great respect for his views on mythology, I am somewhat disappointed in his dealings with whether or not the stuff happened therein is actually true. To Smith, whether or not the stuff in his myths happened was irrelevant, because he was unconcerned with the scientific/historical ramifications of them. I am.

In other words, if Christians were arguing their mythology to be (only) a moral/social guideline, I would have no problem with the Ressurection. But to them it is not mythology- it is history. Ergo, scientific standards apply.

You are arguing in absentia for Christians, with arguments they themselves do not make.

Quote:

Christians, of course, say the same about the gospels. The authors of works of fiction concede that they made them up. The authors of the gospels did not. In fact, I assume the authors of the gospels DIDN'T "make them up". They repeated stories told them by others I would not call The Iliad a "work of fiction" either.

Fiction

1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
2. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
A lie.
1. <LI type=a>A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
2. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
Law. Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

I see nothing here about what an author concedes, other then that they intend for their writings to not sync with reality.

Besides, your entire argument has been based on semantics. Lie, fiction, myth, whatever. The central theme to all of these descriptors is that fact that they are not true. Would you give it up already?

Ty

Toto · 01-19-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

. . .The authors of works of fiction concede that they made them up. The authors of the gospels did not. In fact, I assume the authors of the gospels DIDN'T "make them up". They repeated stories told them by others

Why would you assume this, (except for Luke, a later written gospel that uses many sources)? The earlier gospels Mark and Matthew do not claim to be history, or based on eyewitness testimony. Does every piece of fiction start with "this didn't really happen!"

Quote:

I would not call The Iliad a "work of fiction" either.

Do you think that there is evidence that Athena sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus?

BDS · 01-19-2006, 03:50 PM

Yes. I'll give it up.

It appears this conversation has ground to a halt. Do I think the Resurrection happened? Of course not. If I did, I'd be a Christian. Do I think there's "evidence" for it? Sure, albeit not persuasive evidence.

BDS · 01-19-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Do you think that there is evidence that Athena sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus?

Yes. But it's even worse than the evidene for the Resurrection.

hatsoff · 01-19-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

I've figured BDS out. He's willing to entertain that, just because there has been no verifiable case of somone rising from the dead, ever, that we still shouldn't dismiss the idea.

Yes, that's right.

And don't get me wrong: I'm not happy with what you've posted, but I see where you're coming from. After all, I very much agree with your conclusion that any resurrection is impossible; I just wish you didn't have such open hostility for the idea.

Quote:

After all, he believes it's possible for people to come back from the dead.

If I may take a liberty, here, I would like to give my own assessment of what BDS thinks, according to what he has posted in this thread. Does he believe it is possible for someone to come back from the dead? No, I didn't get that from his posts. However, just because his belief is supported by convincing evidence, he's not unwilling to hear evidence against it.

hatsoff · 01-19-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

Fair enough. But when dealing with how the world works, mythology is in no way more correct than "fiction" or "lie". Mythology doesn't present a correct scientific view of the world. Now it may present a (socially) correct view on morality, or happiness, or theology, but that's not important to this discussion.

Except that sometimes mythology is based in fact. A hundred years ago, for instance, nobody thought Troy existed. And of course many secular historical documents are peppered with plain-jane exaggerations, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them seriously. The Bible and related works are a bit different, because they aren't secular, but the idea is the same: We shouldn't *completely* discount them.

Quote:

The primary question is: Did the Ressurection happen? Part of that question is "Is it feasible for the Ressurection to have happened?"

And you would be right in saying that, no, it is not "feasible." I think all BDS is trying to say is that we should always keep an open mind.

TySixtus · 01-19-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

And you would be right in saying that, no, it is not "feasible." I think all BDS is trying to say is that we should always keep an open mind.

An open mind is a virtue. But no so open that your brains fall out.

As to my "hostility" to the idea of the Ressurection? I am hostile to any idea which requires a man hit his knees and beg for an answer.

Quote:

Except that sometimes mythology is based in fact. A hundred years ago, for instance, nobody thought Troy existed. And of course many secular historical documents are peppered with plain-jane exaggerations, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them seriously. The Bible and related works are a bit different, because they aren't secular, but the idea is the same: We shouldn't *completely* discount them.

So you're comparing the existence of a city (which defies no scientific/medical laws whatsoever) to that of a man rising from his grave. Which we know, as an enlightened society, to utterly ridiculous?

Do I have to point out the problem here?

Ty

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2006, 03:14 PM	#173
BDS Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Eugene, OR, USA Posts: 3,187	It depends who "makes it up". In general myths are not "works of fiction". Native speakers generally call their "myths" by the same word they use for "histories", not by the word they use for "novel" or "fairy tale" or "fiction". Christians, of course, say the same about the gospels. The authors of works of fiction concede that they made them up. The authors of the gospels did not. In fact, I assume the authors of the gospels DIDN'T "make them up". They repeated stories told them by others I would not call The Iliad a "work of fiction" either.

01-19-2006, 03:50 PM	#176
BDS Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Eugene, OR, USA Posts: 3,187	Yes. I'll give it up. It appears this conversation has ground to a halt. Do I think the Resurrection happened? Of course not. If I did, I'd be a Christian. Do I think there's "evidence" for it? Sure, albeit not persuasive evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.