72 hours

Why is it such a dealbreaker for most Christians [with regard to whether they consider someone to be a kindred spirit ~ a "cultural Christian", perhaps?] if that person simply doesn't believe that Jesus experienced a cessation of all biological functions as a result of being executed that lasted 72 hours followed by a reactivation of those biological functions? Aren't there much more important things about Jesus ~ especially about his teachings ~ than this totally unverifiable and seemingly take-it-or-leave-it story of "resurrection"?

@FMF
Spoken like a true Christian... that's my impression of FMF on all of his posts since I started reading these forums. He uses a lot of smoke and mist to hide it...

@fmf said
Why is it such a dealbreaker for most Christians [with regard to whether they consider someone to be a kindred spirit ~ a "cultural Christian", perhaps?] if that person simply doesn't believe that Jesus experienced a cessation of all biological functions as a result of being executed that lasted 72 hours followed by a reactivation of those biological functions? Aren't there much ...[text shortened]... eachings ~ than this totally unverifiable and seemingly take-it-or-leave-it story of "resurrection"?

If the resurrection didn't really happen, really physically, and not merely metaphorically/spiritually/allegorically, then that blasts Christianity out of the water. The resurrection is the 'proof', if you will, that the teachings attributed to Jesus are divine in origin, the certification that they are Laws Of God With Capital Letters, backed up by eternal threats, and not merely man-made guidelines/policies which might be a good idea.

If you subtract the resurrection from Christianity, you are not left with all the ethical bits intact ('thou shalt not kill' etc. etc.). What you are left with is an edifying myth on a level with every other edifying myth propagated throughout history (gilgamesh, Osiris, Prometheus, etc. etc.) which Christianity dismisses as false religion. So Christianity itself becomes false religion, by its own definition, if you subtract the bodily resurrection.

EDIT: The chap you should be reading is Don Cupitt

http://www.doncupitt.com/don-cupitt

Anglican priest who has written many books; you could start with "Taking Leave of God" wherein he makes a case for jettisoning all the unverifiable, superstitious, magical, bits from Christianity -- including, SPOILER ALERT, the existence of God.

@pawnpaw said
@FMF
since I started reading these forums.

Which, based on your posting today, I would say was yesterday.

@moonbus said
So Christianity itself becomes false religion, by its own definition, if you subtract the bodily resurrection.

Not necessarily.

Suppose the resurrection didn't happen, was made up, but Jesus was indeed the biological and spiritual son of God and was executed for sedition and did indeed heal the sick?

Suppose further that this Jesus did appear to the women, did appear to the 12 and did ascend. It is reported that they didn't recognise him. Maybe he had a different body as the last one was stolen and fed to the dogs.

Suppose the resurrection was an addition to the story to add a certain gravitas to what is otherwise just ostensibly a dead body.

@divegeester

See addition to my previous post: Don Cupitt's your man. He's been there, posed that question, answered it.

@moonbus said
@divegeester

See addition to my previous post: Don Cupitt's your man. He's been there, posed that question, answered it.

I made an edit to my post to add a certain gravitas to what could ostensibly have been a dead post.

@moonbus said
@divegeester

See addition to my previous post: Don Cupitt's your man. He's been there, posed that question, answered it.

I'll have a look.

@divegeester

Cupitt is fine writer. Very clear. It is, to say the least, a distinctly odd position for a priest to take. Well, maybe not for an Anglican priest . . .

PS to your remark, what if the resurrection was made up but the healings were real:

If we're going to suppose that the resurrection bit was made up, why should anyone think that the healing bits were not also made up? If you take out the big magical bits, you start down a slippery slope where it is completely arbitrary to leave in other, lesser, magical bits (raising Lazerus, fulfilling prophecies left right and center, changing water into wine, healing the centurion's sick servant, etc. etc.).

@divegeester said
I made an edit to my post to add a certain gravitas to what could ostensibly have been a dead post.

I think FMF is genuinely trying to find a way to salvage something of the Christian tradition for himself in an age which is not fertile ground for many of the presuppositions of Christian doctrine (authority-criterion of truth, for example), much less the magical details. He is not alone in this; many people in our technologized, materialistic, society have come adrift and suffer from pernicious doubts and/or a persistent sense of meaninglessness.

@moonbus said
@divegeester
PS to your remark, what if the resurrection was made up but the healings were real:

If we're going to suppose that the resurrection bit was made up, why should anyone think that the healing bits were not also made up? If you take out the big magical bits, you start down a slippery slope where it is completely arbitrary to leave in other, lesser, magical bits ...[text shortened]... s left right and center, changing water into wine, healing the centurion's sick servant, etc. etc.).

Then this thread would be just another dull as dishwater "supernatural entities do not exist" thread and no one would post in it.

Secondly I find the use of the term "magical" to an adjective which stifles the debate in this context and it blocks the imagination of what could be so that we can explore hypothetical possibilities. The word is used to be deliberately derogatory and it infers an intellectually lazy connection to the popular terminology related to 'sleight of hand'.

@moonbus said
I think FMF is genuinely trying to find a way to salvage something of the Christian tradition for himself in an age which is not fertile ground for many of the presuppositions of Christian doctrine (authority-criterion of truth, for example), much less the magical details. He is not alone in this; many people in our technologized, materialistic, society have come adrift and suffer from pernicious doubts and/or a persistent sense of meaninglessness.

The world is ruined, that's for sure. But "salvaging something from the traditions of Christianity" is not the solution any more than believing in magic (sic) is and I don't think FMF is trying to do this, nor do I think others are like him in that respect - if he was.... FMF will speak for himself of course.

I don't understand where you get your ideas from to be honest. But I do find you interesting.

@moonbus said
many people in our technologized, materialistic, society have come adrift and suffer from pernicious doubts and/or a persistent sense of meaninglessness.

This is very true, especially in the younger generations.

@divegeester said
Then this thread would be just another dull as dishwater "supernatural entities do not exist" thread and no one would post in it.

Secondly I find the use of the term "magical" to an adjective which stifles the debate in this context and it blocks the imagination of what could be so that we can explore hypothetical possibilities. The word is used to be deliberately der ...[text shortened]... it infers an intellectually lazy connection to the popular terminology related to 'sleight of hand'.

Those who believe something impossible really happened, call it a "miracle"; those who believe it didn't really happen call it "magic", an illusion, a trick, sleight of hand, or something made up (for example, for dramatic effect). It's the same piece of glass, just depending on which side of it you're looking at.

@moonbus said
Those who believe something impossible really happened, call it a "miracle"; those who believe it didn't really happen call it "magic", an illusion, a trick, sleight of hand, or something made up (for example, for dramatic effect). It's the same piece of glass, just depending on which side of it you're looking at.

I disagree, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then he was a liar and a con-man, possibly deluded, but not a magician; and his followers who lied about him rising were manipulative conspirators, bad people who sought to achieve a political end by lying.

There is no "magic".