RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 9, 2015 at 12:46 pm
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2015 at 12:47 pm by Cyberman.)
The problem essentially is that apologists don't want less extraordinary explanations. In fact, the more extraordinary the better - after all, however ridiculous it sounds, the writers wouldn't include it if it weren't true, surely? It's so embarrassing, it must be true. I mean, we'd have evidence that didn't hurt the story if we could, so the fact we're even mentioning it is testament to our honesty... right? It's the same shit, exploiting this loophole in human gullibility, that's allowed everyone from Joseph Smith and his magic hat to L Ron Hubbard and his alien ghosts to turn ordinary people into ATMs. Or worse.
We actually had a member a few years ago trying to sell the Bethlehem star as a real astronomical event, before and despite some of us attempting to set her straight. Basically the story elements are: the birth of a baby; peripatetic astrologers; a miraculous planetary alignment not witnessed by anyone else on the planet. Guess which part she selected as the most plausible?
We actually had a member a few years ago trying to sell the Bethlehem star as a real astronomical event, before and despite some of us attempting to set her straight. Basically the story elements are: the birth of a baby; peripatetic astrologers; a miraculous planetary alignment not witnessed by anyone else on the planet. Guess which part she selected as the most plausible?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
