Paul wrote in Romans that if Jesus did not rise from the dead all is in vain. All of Christianity hinges on the reality of one very important event; the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus lived, died, and rose again in a particular time and place of history. The truth of this isn’t something relegated to spiritual mythology, but is rooted in real history. It can be, and has been extensively investigated. The Church was birthed in the very place where this miraculous event occurred. Should it not have happened, there would be little reason for the rise of the Church in this place and time. It wasn’t popular to be a Christian, and it certainly wasn’t safe. There was no power to gain, no influence to grasp, but it was something worth giving all to attain.(to read more click here)
28 comments:
One of the things that confuses me about Easter is why it moves every year. I mean I understand the rather bizarre calculation done to work out where it falls but I can't understand *why* it moves. If it's meant to celebrate an *historical* event then why doesn't it stay still on a particular day like Christmas?
Oh, and I've just posted something you might find interesting (or possibly not) outlining the (many) similarities between Christianity and another ancient religion: Mithra.
I don't know the answer to the calendar question. I'll check out your post. I was just reading about Mithra and I read that it post dates Christianity. Which I have to investigate further.
karla said: I don't know the answer to the calendar question.
I would've thought it quite important myself. Either they couldn't agree on a date because the details are unclear or the actual date of the event is unimportant.
It's a bit like having the date of the D-Day landings being different every year despite knowing that it occured on 6th June. I find it rather bizarre... don't you?
I'm going to look it up now that you got me thinking about it. Easter is always on a Sunday and so the date would change with regard to that. It, the Resurrection, also occurred during Passover and Passover dates change I think too but are according to the Jewish calendar. So it may have something to do with that.
Okay here's what I see from a google search.
Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.
The day Jesus Resurrected occurred on a Sunday during Passover. However Passover isn't the same dates every year because it follows the Jewish lunar calendar. So it wouldn't fall on a Sunday each year if we dated it with the Jewish calendar.
So it was decided to deviate from the Passover dates to just being the first Sunday after the full moon.
Mithra predates Xianity. Apologists have tried to make the claim that it postdates for years now. Some apologists claim that it's moot because there's no similarities between Xianity and Mitraism, while others claim that there are many similarities that Mithraism stole from Xianity due to the post-date start of the religion. It's all very confusing and stems from a need to defend one's preconceived conclusions.
And, speaking of preconceived conclusions: you state that, "The truth of this isn’t something relegated to spiritual mythology, but is rooted in real history. It can be, and has been extensively investigated." Yet, the reality of the situation is that after tons of study, we have no evidence that any of this actually happened. We have hearsay accounts from generations after the supposed events. We have the argument from the apostles being martyrs, which itself is unsupported. We have the argument of Saul's conversion to Paul, which is unremarkable (if it is even accurate) as people convert to new religions all the time. We also have the argument of the lack of a body, which would be impossible to produce if it were all made up after the fact anyway. Etc. etc. etc. I'm still waiting for evidence that Jesus existed from any contemporary source or any evidence that the events described in the Bible are true.
"no evidence" Anon, seriously, if there wasn't any evidence academic scholars and intellectuals would not be writing massive books and research about it.
Are you exempt from preconceived bias? Isn't it possible for the evidence to speak for itself without advocating interpretation bias? The "preconceived" works both ways. Do you not look at everything with skepticism? Do you ever suspend skepticism to examine the claims enough to see if their is substance to the evidence?
karla said: So it was decided to deviate from the Passover dates to just being the first Sunday after the full moon.
Yes, I understand how the date is worked out... but.... if the Ressurection was an *historical* event which happened on a specific date (like the 4th of July for instance) then why is the celebration such a movable feast? If his birthday can be fixed as 25th December - however arbitary that may be - why can't the date of the ressurection be fixed? As you said in your article (IIRC) it's *central* to the Christian belief system... so why the variable date..... unless the actual date is unknown (which kind of casts doubt on the whole thing) or the date is considered unimportant (which seems strange if the event itself is so important).
It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
""no evidence" Anon, seriously, if there wasn't any evidence academic scholars and intellectuals would not be writing massive books and research about it."
Then, surely you can present it. The reason books are written is because it is a topic of cultural importance to us, whether right or wrong. We also have books devoted to James Joyce's writing, popular tv shoes, comic books, etc.
"Are you exempt from preconceived bias?"
No one is, but begging the question is something we should strive to not do. If I simply assume that the events of the crucifixion and resurrection happened and then ignore anything that counters that or assume that everything leads to that, then I'm guilty of acting on my presuppositions and I should be called out on it.
"Isn't it possible for the evidence to speak for itself without advocating interpretation bias?"
If it did actually speak to what you say it does, then yes. Problem is that it doesn't.
"The "preconceived" works both ways."
Not in this case. I'm not assuming not god, I'm asking for evidence that should convince me that god is a viable alternative.
"Do you not look at everything with skepticism?"
That's not a "preconception." In fact, it's the opposite. It's demanding evidence before coming to a conclusion, which is the very opposite of holding preconceptions.
"Do you ever suspend skepticism to examine the claims enough to see if their is substance to the evidence?"
That's the exact wrong approach to take. Why would I suspend skepticism if I want to see if something has substance? You're saying I should uncritically examine things in order to believe in them uncritically, and that that somehow relieves me of having preconceptions? You've got it completely backwards. It's by being unskeptical that you make yourself able to be duped by your own preconceptions. It's by not demanding evidence that you find that anything and everything can be "evidence" for what you want it to be. That's why you think the spurious claims of Josephus (which scholars almost unanimously believe to be forged at least in part) to be good evidence that Jesus existed, as well as all the other fantastic things that the Bible alleges he did (even though those things are not talked about in Josephus's writings). It's why you've convinced yourself that the gospels were written around the time of Jesus, even though the vast majority of scholars have rejected this. If it were about the evidence, you would not hold to such absurdities. Of course, without willing people like you to spend dollars and give respect, charlatans like Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig would not be able to fleece the rubes and command their positions in the world that they do.
I think that the problem with many of the debates here is that they start in the clouds where they should start in the weeds.
That's because many of us contributing here are coming at things from a very different direction so do not agree on the basics (often unstated) on which we all ground our points of view. That's why the debate - no matter where it starts - quickly moves to:
The existence of God
The validity of the Bible
The meaning of evidence
The origin of the Universe
The origin of Morality
...and so on.
Before we can debate anything else these problems need to be resolved first - or at least we need to agree to disagree on many vital points of difference. Otherwise we're just going to have the same unresolved argument over & over again.
Thoughts...?
Cyber, December 25th is not considered to be the date of Christ birth in actuality, it's just a date picked a long time ago to celebrate his birth.
Since the Resurrection happened on a Sunday then it makes sense to celebrate Easter on a Sunday (the reason Christians choose Sunday for church, historically, is that it was the day the Lord rose). So to do that it would have to change every year.
Cyber that's a good analysis. We are coming at things from very different foundations. Where do you think we should start to come at it a different way?
Anon, If you need to be skeptical to examine something honestly, would you not also need to be skeptical of being skeptical? Maybe skepticism shouldn't be the default starting place to determine if something is true.
I don't think skepticism is required for critical thinking.
"I don't think skepticism is required for critical thinking."
Really? We shouldn't question everything presented to us?
Skepticism doesn't mean disbelieving for the sake of disbelieving, it means not blindly accepting things.
karla said: Where do you think we should start to come at it a different way?
...and:
I don't think skepticism is required for critical thinking.
There's a *very* good place to start.
I think that skepticism is *vital* in discussing these things. How else would you have us proceed? Blind acceptence??? How can we think critically about something without at least starting out with skepticism?
ck said: "Thoughts...?"
A lot of this could be avoided if Xians actually presented evidence and stuck to logical arguments. Why would we have to continually ask for evidence if it were presented from the start?
Karla: "Cyber, December 25th is not considered to be the date of Christ birth in actuality, it's just a date picked a long time ago to celebrate his birth."
And, you realize why it was chosen, right? It was chosen due to the pagan celebrations that already existed, thus the Xians tried to co-opt an already existing holiday.
"I don't think skepticism is required for critical thinking."
As Mike and CK have pointed out, how do you propose that we think critically if we simply accept things without demanding evidence? That's the exact opposite of critical thinking. If you wish to contend that your faithful and blind acceptance of your religion is critical thinking, then you'll have to do better.
If skepticism is the basic way of looking at something you want to investigate then do you examine your choice of skepticism in this manner?
Also when do you cease being skeptical? When do you go from skepticism to assent that something is true?
"When do you go from skepticism to assent that something is true?"
Once they are proven, of course.
Frankly, I'm surprised at this line of questioning. Skeptical of skepticism? Kind of silly don't you think?
karla said: If skepticism is the basic way of looking at something you want to investigate then do you examine your choice of skepticism in this manner?
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about skepticism - it just doesn't get you very far. What do you propose our attitude should be if you want us to abandon our skeptical viewpoint in favour of it?
karla said: Also when do you cease being skeptical? When do you go from skepticism to assent that something is true?
When we have enough reason to accept it as such - though keeping in mind the nagging doubt that we could be wrong and be open minded enough to admit our errors (or simply new information) and change our minds accordingly. Nothing should *ever* be finally decided beyond a shadow of a doubt - just beyond *reasonable* doubt.
mike said: Frankly, I'm surprised at this line of questioning. Skeptical of skepticism? Kind of silly don't you think?
You can be up to a point - until it becomes silly. A skeptical approach should be questioned when the circumstances indicate it should be. For example, someone could tell me that they had cornflakes for breakfast. Being skeptical about such statements is pointless.
"Frankly, I'm surprised at this line of questioning. Skeptical of skepticism? Kind of silly don't you think?"
Seems logical for a skeptic to even doubt their own skepticism. I think if that is the default starting place it would have to be that way.
I think you need to suspend skepticism at least somewhat to fully examine somethings truth. If you doubt the evidence and the reason of it every step of the way, where will that get you?
I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, but I haven't gotten them all worked out yet. I think I'll write on it soon in greater depth.
Come to think of it, I think we need to take risks to find truth.
karla said: I think you need to suspend skepticism at least somewhat to fully examine somethings truth.
How can you examine something critically if you suspend skepticism or disbelief? Do you need an 'act of faith' to believe the unbelievable? How is that in any way rational? Or should we also suspend our rationality to discover the 'truth' of things?
karla said: If you doubt the evidence and the reason of it every step of the way, where will that get you?
A place where you can hold beliefs because you have *very* good reasons to hold them - and where you can explain your reasons for holding those beliefs to other people outlining step-by-step reasoning and pointing to evidence along the way.
karla said: Come to think of it, I think we need to take risks to find truth.
Maybe so - but there is a world of difference between taking reasonable risks and unreasonable ones. If the 'risk' is too big how exactly do you know you've discovered anything useful?
Cyber, I didn't say suspend rationality, I said suspend skepticism. I don't think doubting everything gets someone very far in finding truth.
karla said: I don't think doubting everything gets someone very far in finding truth.
It certainly helps remove a lot of the trash that's around - or at least lets you recognise it when you come across it. Without a healthy amount of doubt how do we differentiate between sense and nonsense? What method do *you* use if you're not skeptical?
I understand from previous conversations that you appear skeptical of Darwinian Evolution. Is that the fact and if so what makes you skeptical about it. Maybe we need to dig deeper into the weeds to discover the reason we are (or are not) skeptical about things.....
Once again Karla, you seem to not understand the terms being used. Skepticism doesn't mean absolute rejection of everything, nor does it mean denial of everything, including evidence. Skeptical means not simply accepting claims unless they can be shown through evidence, proof, or at least logical argumentation.
Should we be skeptical of this approach? That's a bad question for a couple reasons, because it's asking whether we should use the method that we use on the method that we use, which is a bit non-sensical. Another reason is that we've seen that it works. Science is built on skepticism, and it works. We know more about the world through science than we've ever learned through religion or uncritical acceptance of things. In fact, I'm still waiting to hear one thing we've learned from religion.
Skepticism is so heavily associated with atheism that it tends to get a bad rap amongst Christians, though they are incredibly skeptical of all things non-Christian. Of course that's not skepticism, it's discernment. ;-)
"Critical Thinking in the Bible
Examples of critical thinking being taught and practiced in the Bible:
A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps. (Pr 14:15)
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. (Pr 19:2)
Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. (Jn 10:37)
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)
Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4:1)
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. (Acts 17:2-4)
For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 18:28)
Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
"'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."'
David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" (Lk 20:41-44) "
All that came from here.There are some examples of skepticism in the Bible.
Along the lines of what Cyberkitty said. If we aren't sceptical, we will have to believe everything we're told, so every religion is true?
Without scepticism we can't process evidence and if your 'truth' can't stand up to that... see the above.
Good discussion, I worked up a post, but I'm going to still think it over before posting because I want to think over your comments and thoughts more first. I probably won't get time to post it until Thursday, nor will I get much more time before then to respond to comments. But I am definitely thinking about them.
Post a Comment