(March 15, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Aegon Wrote: True. You've reconciled your beliefs with the scientific reality as we know it today. I was far from a YEC when I believed too. I also accepted evolution, but I still fervently believed in the New Testament. I do have a question though: if you can accept evolution, why do you still believe in the stories of a man who could walk on water and rise from the grave? In other words, what about the Gospels make more sense to you than the OT? They both seem pretty unlikely, bordering on ridiculous if you'll excuse the disrespectful connotation of the word. And we've certainly proven scientifically that people cannot walk on water or rise from the grave.

I'm not challenging you, I'm just genuinely curious. Because when I was Catholic I didn't exactly have an answer to those things.

There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified. And to me, the rapid spread of early Christianity during a time without good means of transportation or communication further supports the idea that something truly extraordinary was going on. It helps give credit to the miracles depicted in the Gospels.

And not only is there historical evidence for Jesus' existance, but for others in the NT as well - the deciples, John the Baptist, Punctious Pilot, Paul, etc...

I don't deny the historicity of Jesus, I've gotten into some intense arguments on here about that since I appear to be in the minority of atheists who believe he existed. Him existing, of course, does not imply anything further unless one truly believes the word of the Gospels.

AFAIK, none of the Gospels as we see them today were written in his time. They were written decades after the fact. Very, very few people witnessed these miracles if they did happen. The rest was word of mouth.

I look at the rise of Christianity through socio-political lens, like I do most things. I enjoy reading the Gospels as political history; Jesus was a Jew who led a resistance movement against the Roman government, and the religious stuff was actually secondary (just barely, anyway.) I read a couple of books that make this argument. It would then make sense why the men crucified next to Jesus were referred to as "lestai" (very commonly interpreted as a thief, hence his identity as the Good Thief, but it was actually the term the Romans used for those who supported insurrection or rebellion. Textual evidence exists for the context of that term.) That's just a small part of a very large and in-depth argument that I can't replicate here since I don't remember a lot and I'm not exactly qualified to do so, but if you're interested in the argument there's a significant portion of historians who have written about it: I recommend Richard Horsley's works (specifically Jesus and Empire) as well as Zealot by Reza Aslan.

It's no surprise to me that legend of this young man who made such a ruckus in the Jewish province would spread quickly in the area and a following would begin, since they were certainly looking for new leadership and new inspiration in the face of oppression. It makes more sense to me than walking on water, anyway.

Oops posted in wrong thread.

(March 19, 2018 at 12:17 pm)Aegon Wrote: I look at the rise of Christianity through socio-political lens, like I do most things. I enjoy reading the Gospels as political history;

The OT is much of the same.  Read the "prophets" of judah decrying the coming fall of isreal as a polemic, as they were..rather than some batshit crystal ball theory of the Return of the King.

I see the title has passed into history.

LOL, it's not a subject that has much mileage available, you know?  When you can point to trees as old and older than the universe is purported to be....that's pretty much the end of it.

Yeah but then why are there still young earth creationists? The OP is both relevant and irrelevant... it's kinda sad really.

Suckers being born every minute and what have you.

(March 18, 2018 at 6:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 6:47 pm)Wololo Wrote: What's so good about it?  It is the very definition of somebody eating their cake and then trying to make out they still have it.

That post, in fact, would be a perfect application for the UK's brexit negotiation team, it's so full of cakeism.

Despite what rr tries to argue applying the law while ignoring the spirit of it does not free one from following the laws, it is an admonition for one to follow the laws as they were meant to be implemented and not in a perverse way which while grammatically true, still manages to twist the meaning of the law and allow one to commit actions contrary to intent.

A situation would be where you intend to kill someone so you plan your actions in order that you goad them into going for you first, in an attempt to claim you killed them in self-defence.  While some readings of most murder laws would allow, grammatically at least, you to get off for murder, if it were found out that you planned the course of action from day one, you'd be convicted (assuming equally competent judge, solicitors & barristers and 12 good people, fair and true).

Once you realise that road runner is twisting the meaning of "obey the letter but not the spirit", then you realise that his argument falls flat on its face.

Lol ok

Glad you agree with me. Going to give up your aul delusions, then, and leave the church of child rape?

(March 19, 2018 at 5:31 pm)Wololo Wrote:

(March 18, 2018 at 6:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Lol ok

Glad you agree with me. Going to give up your aul delusions, then, and leave the church of child rape?

(March 19, 2018 at 4:04 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Yeah but then why are there still young earth creationists? The OP is both relevant and irrelevant... it's kinda sad really.

I was raised Pentecostal, as most here know.  Darwin was considered a demon, along with scientists, who were servants of the Devil.  They had planted fake dinosaur bones in a specific mission to mislead the faithful.  This was taught in the xtian school I attended, and is still being taught in some schools today.

I was sent to a public high school for 10th grade and was taught evolution in Biology class.  I thought that my parents would very possibly stroke out.  I was told to give the teacher whatever answers the book said, but to understand that they were ALL wrong.  I attempted to tell a few friends my parent's viewpoint, and I will never forget their astonishment and looks of pity.  

The first fear reaction of fundies/YEC's is an egotistical one:  "I am NOT an animal!  I was created by God in the image of God!"
The second fear reaction is the doubt cast upon the book that is "literal truth and literal history" that was written by God for true believers.  
But the biggest fear that they cannot even speak is that if evolution is true, the entire basis of Christianity is a lie.  To literalists, if Adam and Eve never existed, then there was no original sin.  And if there was no original sin, then there was no need of a sacrifice to redeem humanity.

This doubt cannot be allowed to enter into their minds.  There MUST be a way to disprove evolution.  God is going to prove himself right and the scientists wrong. (They argue against global warming in a similar, if less threatened way.  God is in control, humans can't alter the earth, and Jesus is coming back soon anyway so it doesn't matter.)