Originally posted by LemonJellokingdanwa has not said what his analogy is about. It seems that this could only apply the the historical reality of Christ, not Christ's claims of deity. So Christ's claims are irrelevant at this point.
[b]Kennedy made no supernatural
claims: he didn't come back to life, he didn't prophesy his death, he
didn't do healings. I think that, it is fair to say, that we should
approach any claims like these with suspicion.
i think herein lies the crux of the problem with the king's analogy.[/b]
Originally posted by Colettiactually, i think you are right. but that is fine by me. i am fine with accepting the fact that a man named jesus once walked the earth and died on a cross. i don't see this as a major concession. i have never stated otherwise, and not many atheists i know state otherwise (although some certainly do). in that case, the king's targeted audience is probably pretty small IMO.
kingdanwa has not said what his analogy is about. It seems that this could only apply the the historical reality of Christ, not Christ's claims of deity. So Christ's claims are irrelevant at this point.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI am not making the case for "it's true until proven false". I am arguing against the assumption that "supernatural" claims are to be dismissed more readily than others.
[b]once we have seen a supernatural event it would be lunacy to deny its occurence
i have never seen such an event, so this is a bridge yet to be crossed.
it cannot be written off completely simply because we do not have first hand experience
i would say this is true. but this doesn't help your case anymore than simply saying 'wel ...[text shortened]... supernatural attributes of jesus, which for many constitute the whole basis of a lack of belief.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio,
In all seriousness (now that I can see, having wiped tears of laughter
out of my eyes), let's summarize for the class.
Let us make a few observations so that people can appreciate what
you are doing and let us see if your analogy holds. For the sake of
simplicity, let us accept that Jesus, the historical figure, existed (which
I firmly believe to be ...[text shortened]... ritten transmission and
giving 'divine' status to the odes of Homer and the like).
Nemesio
It's late here, but I look forward to addressing this tomorrow. I appreicate you thoughtful response.
Originally posted by ColettiI would ask (and have asked) why accept one and not the other? Why are Jesus's supernatural
Because they contradict each other. We can not believe both Christian scriptures and Greek mythology (or Mormon scriptures) where they contradict.
(BTW. Kudos for seeing where this was all going.)
claims more credible than those of Greek Mythology? Why do you choose to say, 'The Bible is
True and therefore we may conclude that Greek Mythology is false?' Why take the Christian
collection of supernatural stories and not any other?
Le Roi telegraphed his analogy with his hilarious post with the Kennedy Seminar and The
Search for the Historical Kennedy. I just happened to have read the literature which he was
parodying. He deserves the kudos for being clever.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ColettiNot quite. If we look at the Gospels (minor inconsistencies aside for now) as historical documents
kingdanwa has not said what his analogy is about. It seems that this could only apply the the historical reality of Christ, not Christ's claims of deity. So Christ's claims are irrelevant at this point.
as a reflection of what happened (including healings and the Resurrection), then my understanding
of the analogy is quite accurate.
Kingdanwa has not denied that Kennedy existed, you will notice. He has simply proposed an
outlandish theory which is out of concord with what we understand to be 'the facts' as per
eyewitness testimony (again, I'm staying away from photo- and cinematographic evidence for
the sake of simplicity).
Similarly, many non-literalist and non-believers find the historicity of the Gospels to be suspect
and consequently disbelieve the miraculous achievements.
If I might propose the analogy: The analogy of Kennedy's being killed by Indians in 1975 might
be akin to saying that Jesus wasn't crucified, escaped to India, and formed a society which is
still around today.
Nemesio
Originally posted by poopsiecuiI'm not sure how relevant this observation is.
I agree that it is fair to say that we approach supernatural claims with suspicion (we may yet have to define supernatural), and if we are honest, both Theist and Atheist alike, we will admit that we do so on a regular basis. However, once we have seen a supernatural event it would be lunacy to deny its occurence. There may be a difference between seein ...[text shortened]... it, but it cannot be written off completely simply because we do not have first hand experience.
People do in fact hit the lottery. However, if everyone I knew claimed they hit the lottery,
I would be wise to disbelieve it, given its rarity. If I have experienced a supernatural event,
that does not necessitate that I should believe that anyone else had.
It all comes down to how I experienced it and how that experience concords with other people's
description of it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ColettiSpeaking of analogies, for your amusement I present:
The specific claims of Christ are another issue all together. If Kennedy claimed to be a god, that would not mean we should disbelieve he was assassinated in Texas.
The Assassination of John. F. Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race (JG Ballard)
http://www.evergreenreview.com/102/fiction/ballard.html
The Passion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race
(Alfred Jarry)
http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/passion.html
Originally posted by kingdanwaIn July, 1963 Kennedy gave Israel am ultimatum to cease their nuclear program. Israel refused.
I'll quit being ridiculous if someone would offer a way in which we can figure out what happened to Kennedy.
Since the JFK assination no US president has repeated Kennedy's demand.
Clearly it was a mafia,pro-Castro,Anti-Castro, Russian ,FBI,CIA and Israeli conspiracy all orchestrated by Lyndon Johnson assisted by J Edgar Hoover.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio,
There are several reasons. First, Kennedy made no supernatural
claims: he didn't come back to life, he didn't prophesy his death, he
didn't do healings. I think that, it is fair to say, that we should
approach any claims like these with suspicion.
(very limited computer access from now until Monday, thanks for your patience.)
What are we calling supernatural claims? I got the impression from pasts posts that you didn't think Jesus was claiming any divinity. If we are calling very unlikely events "supernatural," I'm becoming a little uncomfortable. Kennedy was the only person (out of so many millions) who claimed to be the President of the United States when he was killed.
But aside from supernatural claims, is it possible to focus on the death issue? Let's assume Jesus made supernatural claims, and let's assume they were false . Couldn't we examine the death of a person who made false claims?
(I have much more to respond to, but my co-workers need the computer to do actual work, the nerve of some people).
Le Roi
[edit: couldn't figure out how to stop the bold, but don't you worry, I solved it.]
I agree with poopsiecui in that theists and atheists alike are often sceptical of miraculous claims. Endorsement of a miracle occurence (The Resurrection), which many Christians make, does not necessarily open the door to endorsement of routine miraculous events. As an example, I would offer the fact that many orthodox Christians who believe wholly in the Resurrection and in the historical reality of what happened at Pentecost, are at the same time very uncomfortable with members of the modern Christian Church who engage in speaking in tongues.
In regards to Nemesio's long yet very eloquent and well thought-out post, I have one question about his discussion of probability. He speaks of his hypothetical claim of resurrecting his dead sister analogous to the resurrection of Jesus, as being entirely unprobable and says we shouldn't believe him because we weren't there to witness such an unlikely event with our own two eyes. But I'm not quite sure the analogy fits on two fronts:
1. Was anyone present to witness his risen sister after she was brought back to life, or was this all done in the dark with only himself to vouch for it? Would this change the probability of her actually being raised from the dead?
2. Connectedly, I would submit that the probability of the claim that he raised his sister from the dead yesterday, is something entirely different from the probability of the claim that he WILL raise his sister from the dead sometime in the future. Essentially, I am getting at the notion that the probability of an event that has already occured is different than that of an event that has not yet occured.
Lastly, I question his assertion that those making the claims (largely the disciples I imagine) would profit from them being true in any worldly sense of the word "profit". Many of the disciples gave up their lives for their belief that Jesus raised from the dead. As Lewis, I believe, points out, men will die for something they BELIEVE TO BE TRUE (however wild their beliefs may be) but they will not die for something they KNOW TO BE FALSE.
I fully recognize that this doesn't render Nemesio's whole post lame, but I am look for a bit of clarity on these points.
Originally posted by NemesioI am talking about one man being crucified, not 50 Super Lotto winners.
I'm not sure how relevant this observation is.
People do in fact hit the lottery. However, if everyone I knew claimed they hit the lottery,
I would be wise to disbelieve it, given its rarity. If I have experienced a supernatural event,
that does not necessitate that I should believe that anyone else had.
It all comes down to how I experienced it and how that experience concords with other people's
description of it.
Nemesio