A Non-Supernatural Resurrection?

[headheart]

Anyone who can really seriously put forward the proposition that the ministry of Jesus was actually a fictional biography is far beyond just wrong . . . but it truth has to fall on the side of being an idiot.

Xru,
Though I'm not sure how Doug's thinking on these matters has changed since Dec. 2009 you might find the following discussion "When I Die?" (beginning at post 36) which includes the ideas of Frank Doonan ( shunyadragon ) , Doug Shaver (I think that is his real name) who begins to comment in post 56 , post 65 , post 66 , post 75 , post 93 , post 98 ( "I am familiar with the stories. I used to believe them myself." - Doug Shaver on January 1st 2010, 03:12 AM ) and post 107 and 111 where things go off the radar, or as Neil Young sings '....into the black.'



I trust some of this might aid you in your assessment of Doug's (though the lad don't give much) whereas Frank tends to give a whole lot more. Kinda remind me of all famous couples. Laurel 'n Hardy, Cheech 'n Chong, Hades and Cerberus (the three-headed hell-hound who guards the third circle of Hell ) ... Kidding they're harmless as kittens ;)

Peace,
Eric

[Tassman]

Too bad that everyone who argues about science/truth don't keep these points in mind. Ya get people coming into TWeb stating that the TOE is a FACT, bla bla bla bla . . . .

Sorry to quibble, there are many verified “facts” which comprise the Theory of Evolution, e.g. it is the basis of modern biology, but what science never says is that it can provide absolute proof for any of its theories. All scientific theories are potentially falsifiable.

OTOH none of the established scientific theories, including TOE, ever have been falsified – although many have been modified. And the same is true of all constants and laws so far discovered in nature, e.g. the speed of light.

[headheart]

Sorry to quibble,

Why apologize when you squibble so well.

there are many verified “facts” which comprise the Theory of Evolution, e.g. it is the basis of modern biology, but what science never says is that it can provide absolute proof for any of its theories. All scientific theories are potentially falsifiable.

OTOH none of the established scientific theories, including TOE, ever have been falsified – although many have been modified. And the same is true of all constants and laws so far discovered in nature, e.g. the speed of light.

Here are a few "facts" which your readers might not know:

1. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.
2. In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.
3. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
4. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.
5. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does.
6. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
7. Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

From: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Peace,
Eric

[Tassman]

Why apologize when you squibble so well.



Here are a few "facts" which your readers might not know:



Peace,
Eric

All good! One might not be able to prove that the constants and laws of nature will hold true, but one can infer from observation and induction that it is overwhelmingly probable that they will. Thus, any "proofs" can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

[headheart]

All good! One might not be able to prove that the constants and laws of nature will hold true, but one can infer from observation and induction that it is overwhelmingly probable that they will. Thus, any "proofs" can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Perhaps part in part why the secular historical writings (1) discuss the events surrounding Jerusalem (2) with such ambiguity whereas those early followers of Jesus boldly proclaimed what they saw without muddying the waters. (3)

1. The Historicity of Jesus Christ - http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html
2. With Jesus in Jerusalem - http://www.rc.net/wcc/israel/jerus03.htm
3. Answers from Dr. Gary Habermas - http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm

Peace,
Eric

[shunyadragon]

Too bad that everyone who argues about science/truth don't keep these points in mind. Ya get people coming into TWeb stating that the TOE is a FACT, bla bla bla bla . . .

It far past time Xru that you and others please stop misrepresenting science, and the Theory of Evolution for promoting a religious agenda. Layman texts, even those layman texts written by scientists refer to 'Evolution as a fact' in describing the certainty that Evolution is a valid falsifiable theory that has not failed the test since Darwin proposed it. It is best in debates to deal directly with the issues, and not Red Herrings.

Is there any valid scientific reasons to doubt the Theory of Evolution? Are there any competing theories that are falsifiable based on the existing evidence?

[MaxVel]

Is there any valid scientific reasons to doubt the Theory of Evolution? Are there any competing theories that are falsifiable based on the existing evidence?

Are those two criteria the only ones upon which it is possible to have a rational basis for doubt of something?

[Kane]

[headheart]

It far past time Xru that you and others please stop misrepresenting science, and the Theory of Evolution for promoting a religious agenda. Layman texts, even those layman texts written by scientists refer to 'Evolution as a fact' in describing the certainty that Evolution is a valid falsifiable theory that has not failed the test since Darwin proposed it. It is best in debates to deal directly with the issues, and not Red Herrings.

Is there any valid scientific reasons to doubt the Theory of Evolution? Are there any competing theories that are falsifiable based on the existing evidence?

Your first question:
Is there any valid scientific reason to doubt the Theory of Evolution?

Professor Jeffrey Schloss has some interesting points about this in his Faraday lecture: The "End" of Love: Evolutionary Psychology, Altruism, and Human Purpose (18.07.2006)
He referred to Dr. Charles Darwin's doubts about ? I'll give it a listen and see if I can surrender a quote for y'all.

I've other thoughts, but I'm going to take a back seat on this sidebar.

Peep.
Eric

[Tassman]

Perhaps part in part why the secular historical writings (1) discuss the events surrounding Jerusalem (2) with such ambiguity whereas those early followers of Jesus boldly proclaimed what they saw without muddying the waters. (3)

1. The Historicity of Jesus Christ - http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html
2. With Jesus in Jerusalem - http://www.rc.net/wcc/israel/jerus03.htm
3. Answers from Dr. Gary Habermas - http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm

Peace,
Eric

So boldly that upon the death of Jesus his followers splintered into numerous groups each with its own beliefs. So which “early followers of Jesus” are you referring to?

“The early Christian Church was a chaos of contending beliefs. Some groups of Christians claimed that there was not one God but two or twelve or thirty. Some believed that the world had not been created by God but by a lesser, ignorant deity. Certain sects maintained that Jesus was human but not divine, while others said he was divine but not human. In Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman offers a fascinating look at these early forms of Christianity and shows how they came to be suppressed, reformed, or forgotten. All of these groups insisted that they upheld the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and they all possessed writings that bore out their claims, books reputedly produced by Jesus's own followers……Ehrman examines in depth the battles that raged between "proto-orthodox Christians"-- those who eventually compiled the canonical books of the New Testament and standardized Christian belief--and the groups they denounced as heretics and ultimately overcame.”

Product description: ‘Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew’.

[headheart]

So boldly that upon the death of Jesus his followers splintered into numerous groups each with its own beliefs. So which “early followers of Jesus” are you referring to?

That really depends on whether you accept (a) Paul's letters, (b) the four gospel accounts, (c) the Acts and (d) the Old Testament passages and (e) other sources referred to in all of these as reliable sources or not.
In my view of the Christian sacred texts in general I'm of the view that the extant manuscripts came out of what Prof. Ben Witherington refers to as an oral culture and so am inclined to having a very low view of scripture and therefore seam together my thoughts with regard to them with a very loose hand approach. Now based on that and referring to your point 'So boldly that upon the death of Jesus his followers splintered into numerous groups' and my point that 'Perhaps part in part why the secular historical writings (1) discuss the events surrounding Jerusalem (2) with such ambiguity whereas those early followers of Jesus boldly proclaimed what they saw without muddying the waters. and this is going to be in the form of throw at the wall bits and pieces reply: 'those early followers of Jesus' would be the same one's who went out preaching during the ministry of Jesus prior to his death, who returned declaring that they'd successfully healed others in his name. Now as far as I read it, up until Jesus' death they were a pretty close knit family but not yet empowered with the Holy Spirit (something which would only come to pass at Pentecost where Peter would stand up and preach in that holy anointing, and Stephen would be martyred etc.) and certainly not really accepting Jesus' words about needing to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die, so when he was handed over in Gethsemane by one of his own and then whipped and beaten and finally tried and crucified (not forgetting Peter's denial) the little band of early disciples went into hiding fearing a similar fate. Their real boldness came after he had risen and appeared to them and taught them and commissioned them to go forth and make disciples of all men. Now what followed that saw a triad of apostolic leadership in Jerusalem which at some point met up with the apostle Paul and we know of the council where they established the core beliefs for Gentiles and how Paul went on working among the Gentiles and we have there writings which have been most successful in keep the whole gang more or less on track. We also pretty much do know thanks to the ECFs that there were off shoots into various wonderful beliefs, but my own point is with regard to the events such as the one at 'the gate beautiful' where Peter says basically that he doesn't have riches but what he has he gives to the man in the name of Jesus. This may sound trite, but the thing is that the early disciples (I mean those who walked around with Jesus) drew from his presence and the one's after he was crucified (immediately) didn't have the Holy Spirit/the Comforter and the one who would remind them of all things, so they were basically much the same as a believe in our times who does not yet have that endowment (sort of like Apollos who proclaimed the message but not with the boldness of the that anointing, which teaches us all things) Yeah, so those early disciples were weak, of course the disagreement over whether they should keep on obeying everything in the Law and Paul's letter to the Galatians show that not all was that tough as when the Master had been there guiding and also teaching them. Yet throughout the History of the Church G-d seems to have raised up leaders who've had powerful anointing and so the presence of G-d too has been with us and guiding as very much more intimately than in the past. We don't have it all firing the way he did, but we have something more amazing and that is the presence of Jesus with us and through the agency of the Holy Spirit, in us. As I've said in the past echoing the words of Joseph Smith, we have this Word of God that is not a book which can guide whosoever draws near in earnest and continual prayer and thereby be led in the way that the ancient were (Abraham, the father of the faith) and the reformer were when they tried to move sluggish Rome back into the glorious covenant of which Paul so accurately teaches and refers to the early writings of Habakkuk.
It's these early disciples which walked with Jesus who were weak then bold, then weak and the Pentecost were bold again, and under the guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit continue to be as bold as Stephen though certainly not all, for not all commit themselves as the early disciples did, to breaking of bread and fellowship from house to house and holding all things in common etc. (the quote in the book of Acts)
Certainly, the history of the Church has been a rather fascinating journey and not all good, but one thing that does amaze me is that after all this time, we are still on track and with the help of the internet are forging ties across our planet and encouraging one another to stand for the Lord in these turbulent and changing times where Genetics and Physics and the science in general have been growing and guiding us to a better understanding and dependency upon the Holy Spirit.
I know I've rambled, but I said I would and consistently I always do.
I am sure others such as Adrift and SeanD will give you better replies but this is mine.

God bless,
Eric.