Daydreamer

Care to explain yourself?

How can accounts recorded at least 20 years after the fact (in the case of the Pauline letters and Mark) be considered viable sources?

How about the fact that we have no completed copies of the NT until Constantine's Codex Sinaiticus (sp?), circa the end of the 3rd century?

What about blatantly clear parallel's between your J.C. and other ressurection cults of the same time period?

Atticus_Finch

"The universe did not 'come into existence' because it has always been " Now if that is not a statement of faith based on absolutely no evidence, I don't know what is.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones

It's not my "belief," which is another reason why your "counter example" is not particularly compelling.

I didn't miss your "point" at all. My project was to suggest you don't have one. How exactly does one require "faith" in order to understand what one directly observes? And how is such a situation analogous to your supernatural beliefs (those are "beliefs")?

Then you accept a pretty big chunk of evidence for the Big Bang, my friend. So much for your "counter example," eh?

You're certainly entitled to that conclusion, my lower back pain and myopia notwithstanding.

This universe that we observe came into existence in accordance with the laws of physics, as far as I know. What came before that, I don't know. Does anyone?

Of course. My understanding is that we have a pretty good idea of how the universe unfolded over the last several billion years. As for what happened much before the Planck Time, if we can even talk about things "happening" at all, your guess is as good as mine, I would imagine; although neither of our guesses are probably as good as a theoretical physicist's.

I don't see where "personal god" enters into it at all.

Atticus_Finch

Why not? If you saw a man do miracles and raise from the dead don't you think you would remember it 20 years from now?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

How about the fact that we have no completed copies of the NT until Constantine's Codex Sinaiticus (sp?), circa the end of the 3rd century?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

So what? We have numerous fragments which are substantially consistent.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

What about blatantly clear parallel's between your J.C. and other ressurection cults of the same time period?[/QB][/QUOTE]

My reading on this subject indicates that the "resurrection cults" post date Christ and are probably rip offs of Christianity rather than the other way around. Further, most of them are not similar in that the diety dies and is resurrected every year, i.e. the seasons, this is not like Christ.

Regards,

Finch

RufusAtticus

Atticus_Finch,

By your standards of evidence, you must also believe in the divinity of Romulus, whose asscended to heaven as Quirinus.

This thread will probably get moved, but not yet...

~~RvFvS~~

Atticus_Finch

First, let me say that I am disappointed that no one so far wants to discuss "faith" as I did in my original post. Second, no, I do not believe in Romulus. Are there multiple eyewitness accounts of his ascension extant?

Regards,

Finch

RufusAtticus

Why would the Romans base their calender after a man who didn't exist? Rome had to come from somewhere. It was common knowledge in Ancient Rome that Romulus built the city then ascended into Heaven. Why would people believe this if it were possible to point to his grave and show his body? Furthermore, the noble senators seated besides him saw the divine whirlwind take him away. You cannot find better witnesses from the time.

Obviously, he must have ascended into Heaven. There's no other explaination.

~~RvFvS~~

hezekiah jones

What's even more disappointing is your failure to elaborate upon the flawed analogy you originally drew between "faith" and physics.

Duvenoy

I think Christianity, as well as other religons, is based on the perfectly human need to believe something; to find an explanation to life the universe and everything (42).

When Jesus walked the earth (yeah, I know - some doubt, there), there was little science. They had some math, astronomy, and the sort of genetics that said that if one bred goat A with goat B, one will get goat C. They knew little beyond what was passed on by word of mouth or preached by their religous leaders. Therefore, a deity (but only the one(s) I worship) has to exist, otherwise there'd not be a world. Add that to the perfectly human desire for authority, even power, and you have the origins of religon and largly explained it's longevity.

I will admit that the Big Bang Theory is a mystery to me, best left to it's scholars. I'll read with intrest the results of their studies. But I find BB makes a lot more sense than God-done-it. The Theory of Evolution, however, I can observe every day and even hold it's results in my hands. Those results have bitten me too many times.

The point, if indeed I have one, is that beliefs evolve just like anything else. Had I lived some few centuries ago, I'd probably have been as devout as anyone - or concievably burned for heresy. The Church, in those evil days, was a bitch. Thank the Great and Caustic Mojo it's evolved a little. Praise be!

Just a couple of thoughts.

d

missus_gumby

I'd expect it to be written about at the time it happened, wouldn't you?