View Full Version : Missing Invitees
One event in the Bible that is very important to Christians is the Resurrection story. One thing that I never understood is how the disciples missed it. Here they follow this prophet around for a long time. They see him perform many miracles with their own eyes. He raises a dead man, and walks on water. And he says many wonderful things too. But he tells everybody that he's going to be crucified, but that he is going to come back to life in three days (I have been in cults more than once for long periods,and if your guru, your LINK TO GOD, said this, you would not sleep in that morning). Even the Pareses sent soldiers to guard the tomb because they thought the followers would steal the corpse and say that he had arisen (Duh, they remembered what he said, they heard it).
My theory is that the soldiers slept (good weed, man!), and the disciples did steal him back, and that is why they didn't wait around.
Plus we have all these reports of what happened at the trial and crucifixion. Don't you think that if there had really been a guy who disappeared we would have lots of city news about that too. Not just Bible news.
And John 20:9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.>but he told the disciples so often, that I just think that is a really lame excuse for something..."none of them remembers how he said he had to go to Jerusalem and get crucified and rise on the third day? Not one?"
Perhaps this isn't the right venue for this, but this scene is critical to Christianity. Many millions of us "believe" it?
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
2+2,
You have a very good point. I used to come
here a lot before. I gave many scripture
ref's to the "christians" regarding contradictions of the bible...you know..not
one could address them directly. They talked
around it...but that was it.
Wonder why that is?????? LOL
Flash, this topic has sat here like a smelly fish for ten days...and I'm getting the feeling that this board is for the "Big Ideas" that the regular members post.
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
naw...don't worry about that..sometimes that
is just how it works out. I used to come
here several times a day... I have just been
unable to this past month.. wait til Lori
starts coming back... then look out LOL
she and I differ on our views..but she is
a great person.
Yeah.. you just wait for em to get back in business, theres gonna be alot of posting going on here. I agree with Lori on some, and Flash on some, so i always get in the middle ( stroking them both so they wont get pi$$sed LOL)
I don't know if you have found the things i sent you Flash, but such things are things that people can't deny, and people won't touch it because they really do not have anything to counter it.
2+2: I think you have hit the right thing.. There are so many things about the bible that i really can't figure out.. Now you have pointed out another thing for me to think about.. Also remember one thing.. The bible was written by the same people that thought the Earth was flat, so they can't have everything right. ;)
------------------
"We didn't inherit this world from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children".
:) Hey H-Kon
LMAO ohhhhhhhh I see how it is now... keeping things at peace for yourself hahaha
Smart very smart!!
Actually, I really have not looked up what
you sent to me :( I have a new job...
and now I am back on a sucky shift so I
still won't be able to post much like I thought I was going to ..but I will do my
best :)
You are right in reference to the same
people that wrote the bible are the same
ones that thought the world to be flat. Besides... the Bible is FILLED with tons
and tons of contradictions...something is
wrong with that picture ..don't ya think? Then the "christians" pass them of as if that
is not important to consider??? I don't get it.
I wanted to stick my nose in here and add one thing about the people who wrote the Bible. Standard curriculum in Jesuit high schools, at least, as of 1990, taught a few things about the creation of the Bible. Namely, the four common Gospels were written 60-200 years after the alleged Christ died, but I'm sure most of us knew that, so excuse me if that's repetitive.
The part that blew my mind then, and still continues to amaze people when they first hear it, was that at one time there were as many as sixty-four Gospels, and that, during an Ecumenical council early in Roman Church history pared that down to four, allegedly for accuracy purposes. Strange, though, how many of the apocryphal "gospels" aren't deliberately rosy toward Jesus. The Gospel of St. Thomas and the Gospel of St. Mary come to mind as examples. Thus, though they may have thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, Biblical authors certainly made political manipulation part of their infamous resumes.
As to the Old Testament, a Franciscan nun teaching in that Jesuit structure taught that much of the Old Testament was written by Essene scribes. All I can say here is that the most visible Essene contribution in the modern day are God-love nursery rhymes on soap-wrappers.
Ever read Dr. Bronner's soap? Remember when you do that these people wrote the Old Testament.
later,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Tiassa, funny how the keepers of the faith want to believe that they really (really) know what is going on here!? Maybe it's just human nature to have to FEEL right...to FEEL that you and your crew really know whats going on...?
Did your teachers ever talk about this particular confusion that I bring up?, about the disciples not getting it about the resurrection. This idea about "beating death" must ahave been what being a prophet was all about...a healer by touch.
Plus, you gotta believe that back then if you got sick, then everyone said, "He/she got that plague (whatever) because god doesnt love them...because of x-reason. They had it coming. I still hear that nonsense everywhere I go.
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
MrCynic
08-13-99, 02:13 AM
As the name states, I am a cynic by nature. But strangely enough, I am also religious, being a fairly good Catholic. The thing I try to remember about the Bible is that it is sometimes allegorical. Jesus told stories to make a point, and it seems logical that those compiling the Bible would do the same. Taken from that perspective, it's a much more dramatic story if no one is around to witness the actual resurrection.
Or, if you'd like to look at it from a totally realistic standpoint (non-allegorical), put yourself in the place of said disciples. Your leader has just been put to a violent death. The general populace has turned against you. Soldiers are rounding up your fellow followers. You're scared and confused, despite what your leader has told you to expect. Do you: A) Head over to the tomb where there are sure to be soldiers waiting? Or B) Stay away, and see what happens next?
Finally, as to the historical accuracy of the Bible, I ask you this: Name me one history that's over 16 centuries old that you would trust to be completely accurate? While I can't speak for those who take the Bible as the absolute truth and word of God, to my mind the Bible is an important history written by committee. And like any committee, things have been added or deleted to meet its objectives. The core message, though, of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" still remains a key tenet of civilization. All we have to do is figure out how to do it.
Ray Bradbury writes a great resurrection in "Graveyard for Lunatics" (Knopf, 1990). Great novel if you like mysteries.
Jesus, if I recall, was raised in Galilee, which, if I recall, was a hotbed of zealotry and political idealism. He hung out with John the Baptist, and if tradition is to be believed, he was brash enough to tell the rabbis to shove it when he was twelve.
Religion, like politics, always reaches out to the most desperate segment of society. (I understand fully that the American political system conveniently ignores the segments too desperate to consider, but those of us who are eating daily and living in reasonable homes hear we have it terrible, according to CNN). Fishermen have always been excellent fishermen. But how many of them read? How many of them were theoretic thinkers? Or a tax collector? That wasn't, in its day, a high-IQ job.
What I'm getting at here is that the disciples were not necessarily a brain trust. It is conceivable that they didn't even realize the religious implications of what they were doing. Religious reform has gone hand in hand with social reform. Centuries of Irish history teach us that; religious reform scoured the American continent clean of its former empires. Advocating religious reform often meant advocating social reform.
Jesus was condemned as a subversive and a thief. It was only in mockery that he suffered as "King of the Jews".
Consider that the Revelations were written during dire times for the fledgling Church. Does it not seem, in such a context, a stirring tale? A rally cry?
I think the reasons the disciples fumble in the Gospels is that they aren't a religious sect but a cadre of pacifist zealots. How can the players act the part if they don't know what the script means to the audience?
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
What I'm getting at here is that the disciples were not necessarily a brain trust. It
is conceivable that they didn't even realize the religious implications of what they were
doing. I think the reasons the disciples fumble in the Gospels is that they aren't a
religious sect but a cadre of pacifist zealots. How can the players act the part if they
don't know what the script means to the audience?</p>
<font color="#800040">I am saying that the disciples were told numerous times by Jesus
that he was going to get crucified in Jerusalem, but not to worry: He would rise on the
third day. They had seen him perform many miracles and say wonderful things, even
raise a dead man. But they didn't even wait by the tomb to see what would happen. In
Luke24:11 Mary Magdalene reports to the eleven that the lord is risen, and they don't
believe it...and say that this is an "idle story." Christianity would want
us to accept what even the disciples wouldn't.</font></p>
</p>
</p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
MrCynic,
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> </p>
As the name states, I am a cynic by nature. But strangely enough, I am also religious,
being a fairly good Catholic. The thing I try to remember about the Bible is that it is
sometimes allegorical. Jesus told stories to make a point, and it seems logical that those
compiling the Bible would do the same. Taken from that perspective, it's a much more
dramatic story if no one is around to witness the actual resurrection. </p>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I am not talking about
allegories, or anything that Jesus said. I am talking about how strange it is that
the disciples missed the Resurrection. I think if there had been a few hundred
people there it would be much more "believable." Even if the disciples HAD
been there it would be a more logical story. But they didn't believe that he was
going to rise. They did not believe in him.</font><font face="Verdana, Arial"
size="2"></p>
Or, if you'd like to look at it from a totally realistic standpoint (non-allegorical),
put yourself in the place of said disciples. Your leader has just been put to a violent
death. The general populace has turned against you. Soldiers are rounding up your fellow
followers. You're scared and confused, despite what your leader has told you to expect. Do
you: A) Head over to the tomb where there are sure to be soldiers waiting? Or B) Stay
away, and see what happens next? </p>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">The general population had
not turned against them. Soldiers were not rounding up Jesus' followers either. So
that's not so realistic..."Your scared and confused..." I don't see that
written anywhere. "...despite what your leader has told you to expect."
You mean about the resurrection?? They didn't believe it. Try reading
the last parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It'll take only a few minutes and
then you'll understand me better.</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"></p>
Finally, as to the historical accuracy of the Bible, I ask you this: Name me one
history that's over 16 centuries old that you would trust to be completely accurate? While
I can't speak for those who take the Bible as the absolute truth and word of God, to my
mind the Bible is an important history written by committee. And like any committee,
things have been added or deleted to meet its objectives. The core message, though, of
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" still remains a key tenet of civilization. All we
have to do is figure out how to do it.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Maybe when we stop worshipping an
idea, and focus on life we humans will learn to love each other. Life has its emotional
component of Death...shame. </font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
Perhaps they didn't wait around because they were too drunk. I know I would have been, had I been that close to Jesus. I'm serious here.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Perhaps they didn't wait around because they were too drunk. I know I would have been,
had I been that close to Jesus. I'm serious here.
<font color="#800040">
Where is the serious part? First you say they were stupid, and now you throw out
that they were drunk.</font></p>
<font color="#800040">But imagine, you have spent the last few years with the sweetest
talking person that there ever was. He also performed miracles that seemed to demonstrate
tremendous power with a direct link to (he claimed) the one God. And he was a prophet. And
he preformed many feats in order to fulfill previous prophecies that were written in past
generations. These guys, Jesus' disciples knew this, and felt the power...why else
would they follow him? If you re-read the ends of the first 4 books of the NT...that
would be cool. I figured the Jesuits would have a quick knock-down answer to this
question. It must come up all the time like the 2000 year old man!</font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
Seriously, if I had been part of a political movement that pulled off some of the things Jesus' ministry is said to have done ... I'd be drunk when my leader died. Very, very drunk.
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Seriously, if I had been part of a political movement that pulled off some of the
things Jesus' ministry is said to have done ... I'd be drunk when my leader died. Very,
very drunk.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">Seriously? So all the miracles and sweet-talking was just a
cover-up for some poor and ignorant drunks trying to make some political maneuvers?
Kewl!</font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
A drunk, ill-bred conspiracy is, I suppose, a possibility. Of course, I forgot that anybody who hung around Jesus was spared the frightening depth of human emotion. So, no, the disciples would not have been depressed at Jesus' execution, and had they been, they certainly would not have displayed it in a form common to human society--say, getting drunk.
How silly of me.
What point am I missing here?
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
I feel that you are missing the point that his brethren failed to show up, or later even believe that he had been resurrected. I find that strange, especially since we are all supposed to accept this tall tale or spend eternity in hell.
What I'm having a hard time with is that you seem to think that people don't miss important events to get drunk.
OK--Jesus is arrested, and I would actually expect the disciples to hide. Upon his conviction, I would expect some to return to the daylight in order to put up the good fight. Upon his death? I can see people getting drunk and losing track of the days.
Now, which location or event is in question? Really, for most political movements, abject drunkenness is probably the most common excuse for absence I've ever known.
So if I've got you correct over the duration of our exchange, the disciples were all brilliant philosophers who chose to follow one reformer? And in that day of ultra-clean and plentiful water, they didn't consume spirits?
Frankly, I'm wondering if our inability to find common ground stems from a basic perspective difference. It sounds, in a couple of places (e.g. when you mention how we're all supposed to believe the story, no questions asked), like what you're pursuing is a reconciliation of traditional data and modern behavior. If this is the case, I can only urge you to abandon this pursuit. Logic and conduct cannot come together in modern Christianity because logic becomes utterly subjective when applied to faith circumstances.
Elsewise, I haven't a clue what to tell you.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
What I'm having a hard time with is that you seem to think that people don't miss
important events to get drunk. </p>
OK--Jesus is arrested, and I would actually expect the disciples to hide. Upon his
conviction, I would expect some to return to the daylight in order to put up the good
fight. Upon his death? I can see people getting drunk and losing track of the days. </p>
<blockquote>
Now, which location or event is in question? </p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">What!? You have forgotten so quickly?? It is the
Resurrection we are talking about.</font></p>
<blockquote>
Really, for most political movements, abject drunkenness is probably the most common
excuse for absence I've ever known. </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
So if I've got you correct over the duration of our exchange, the disciples were all
brilliant philosophers who chose to follow one reformer? And in that day of ultra-clean
and plentiful water, they didn't consume spirits? </p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">Check close darling, because I never said anything close to this.</font></p>
<blockquote>
Frankly, I'm wondering if our inability to find common ground stems from a basic
perspective difference.</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">Maybe you are coming from the alcohol perspective?</font></p>
<blockquote>
It sounds, in a couple of places (e.g. when you mention how we're all supposed to
believe the story, no questions asked), like what you're pursuing is a reconciliation of
traditional data and modern behavior.</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">Really? It sounds like that? What exactly are you
talking about?? Traditional data...what's that? Modern behavior Is that
definable? Sounds to me like a martini.</font></p>
<blockquote>
If this is the case, I can only urge you to abandon this pursuit.</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">Don't worry about me. I am not chasing.</font> </p>
<blockquote>
Logic and conduct cannot come together in modern Christianity because logic becomes
utterly subjective when applied to faith circumstances. </p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040">Oh! I see. Logic just doesn't work. It's like
in some "situations" eleven out of eleven would just go get drunk for two or
three days...</font></p>
<font color="#800040">"Yo Tom!!! What day did the Son of Man say he was gonna
rise??? Was it Tuesday or Wednesday?"</font></p>
<blockquote>
Elsewise, I haven't a clue what to tell you.</p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#800040"><small><small>"Elsewise" isn't a word...clueless.
</small></small>Thanks for the chase.</font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
What I find interesting here is this whole thing got started about 18 days ago, and lo and behold we don't seem to have any reply's
from our dog-ma Christain fans.
Come on guys, 'Cat Got Your Tounge, or What'. Perhaps you may know when to keep
you big kisser quiet.
Mind you I could care less what you believe in, or don't. I too believe in God, but have the sense to know it can only be accepted and not proved, or pushed on anyone.
What does bother me is the ignorant
bast....s who pass judgement on others and even go to the point to say it is ok to destroy thoes who don't believe as they do.
Pat Roberson, for one has said publicly that "anyone who believes in flying saucers, is worshiping Satan should be put to death" Mind you this man calls himself a "Man of God". I think not. Perhaps a Man/Leader of the Insane.
What is even more distressing is it is possiable that someone like this could become President. God help us if this does
happen. With the doomsday outlook they have, why not go ahead and push the RED BUTTON ? "Its a coming anyway".
Forgive my spelling please. I know it's bad. My problem is dislexia. (boo, hoo).
Love these topics/debates.
Try this on for a process; I can't imagine why you can't get this . . . .
Jesus dies. Okay. Now his disciples are kind of bummed out. Too bad. Some of them go on drinking binges that last for ten days. Okay? Three days? Ten days? Can you see anyone being depressed after Jesus died? Can we agree that at least SOMEONE close to him might have found this occasion a bummer? Now, the where you and I seemed to really start to not see eye to eye is right about here. Okay, so imagine that I am the person who was close to Jesus and chose to feel badly. Maybe I might feel like a drink. Or six. Or sixty.
Is that so hard to understand?
As for the things which I know quite well you did not say, well, I'm sorry: what else could explain your inability to understand that all of this 'twixt you and I started when you failed to understand that it is entirely possible that someone was too drunk to stumble to the tomb. Certes, it was all assumption for argument's sake, but I needed some motivation to work with here. And you're certainly full of that.
Now . . . take a deep breath. If I recall, the original question had to do with why the disciples weren't there when Jesus rolled away the stone.
Okay, you can exhale . . . .
So: Maybe some of them were drunk.
I actually find the notion fittingly funny. Too drunk to attend the greatest Godly miracle yet. It sounds about human, to me. I am truly sorry if you can't handle that idea, or can't understand it, or can't whatever. I just don't get where you're failing to understand that people get stinking drunk sometimes when they're depressed.
Ye gods! You're making me want a drink now.
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
<blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Try this on for a process; I can't imagine why you
can't get this . . . . </font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I find your consistent ad homonym
argument that I don't get drunkenness...amusing.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Jesus dies. Okay. Now his disciples are kind of
bummed out. Too bad. Some of them go on drinking binges that last for ten days. Okay?
Three days? Ten days? Can you see anyone being depressed after Jesus died? Can we agree
that at least SOMEONE close to him might have found this occasion a bummer? Now, the where
you and I seemed to really start to not see eye to eye is right about here. Okay, so
imagine that I am the person who was close to Jesus and chose to feel badly. Maybe I might
feel like a drink. Or six. Or sixty. </p>
</font>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Absolutely amazing! You
persist. They were bummed out and got drunk. Too drunk to remember his
prophecy, but not too drunk to race to the tomb after MM tells them what's happened.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Is that so hard to understand? </p>
</font>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">It is really really hard to
understand my friend. You stand alone. Never have I heard any one say that the
disciples failed to show up because they were all drunk. It's funny. I am an
idiot to continue...clearly you don't read what I say to you. No you push on with I
don't get it, and you do. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for the things which I know quite well you did
not say, well, I'm sorry: what else could explain your inability to understand that all of
this 'twixt you and I started when you failed to understand that it is entirely possible
that someone was too drunk to stumble to the tomb. Certes, it was all assumption for
argument's sake, but I needed some motivation to work with here. And you're certainly full
of that. </p>
</font>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Ad homonym B.S.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Now . . . take a deep breath. If I recall, the
original question had to do with why the disciples weren't there when Jesus rolled away
the stone. Okay, you can exhale . . . . So: Maybe some of them were drunk. </p>
</font>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Again!!?? What's the matter?
Either you can't read, or your drunk. I really don't think you could find two
people in NYC who would agree with you, that the apostles were all drunk, and that is why
they failed to wait for their guru to resurrect himself. Jeez</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
<blockquote>
I actually find the notion fittingly funny. Too drunk to attend the greatest Godly
miracle yet. It sounds about human, to me. I am truly sorry if you can't handle that idea,
or can't understand it, or can't whatever. I just don't get where you're failing to
understand that people get stinking drunk sometimes when they're depressed. </p>
</blockquote>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I'm drunk right now...and
probably depressed too....your point though, it sucks.</font><font face="Verdana, Arial"
size="2"></p>
<blockquote>
Ye gods! You're making me want a drink now. </p>
</blockquote>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Don't blame me...Any excuse
will do. Between you and me, the disciples didn't show because all that miracle
stuff didn't happen like it's written.</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"></p>
</p>
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)</font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
Hi guys,
I may be a little late on this topic to add my two cents worth, but here goes.....
After Jesus cracked a fit in a temple for people trading on the Sabbath, he was threatened and he replied - destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days -
It wasn't till <u>after</u> the resurrection that His followers then understood what he meant by that.
As for the earth being flat...errr... beg to differ but you better stick your nose in the old testament, it clearly states the earth is round!
Chow fer now,
Dave. :)
Hi Dave! Thanks for responding. You say,</p>
<blockquote>
"I may be a little late on this topic to add my two cents worth, but here
goes.....
After Jesus cracked a fit in a temple for people trading on the Sabbath, he was threatened
and he replied - destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days -
It wasn't till <u>after</u> the resurrection that His followers then understood what he
meant by that."</p>
</blockquote>
Here is Mark 8:31</p>
<blockquote>
<font color="#0000FF">And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again.</font></p>
</blockquote>
Mark 10:32</p>
<blockquote>
<font color="#0000FF">And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to
happen to him sayin, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will
be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and
deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him,
and kill him; and after three days he will rise.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font color="#400000">Like I have said before, it is pretty clear that Jesus told not
only his followers, but evryone that he would rise after three days. Even the Parasees had
heard about it, and sent soldiers to protect the tomb from robbers.</font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
Okay, 2+2 ... let me try to establish a few things.
First: "...the disciples didn't show because all that miracle stuff didn't happen like it's written." (2+2, 8/20) Is that what this is about? Fine. You don't have to convince me that the faith parts of the Bible are merely faith declarations; ergo, they are fiction.
As to this, let me say then, that I think part of why you and I disagree has to do with how we perceive the Jesus movement. For my own part, I think there was a man called Jesus who did lead a movement; I think that movement called for religious reform insofar as Judaism's political value within the contemporary social structure was only apparent to Pharisees. I think that Jesus died for being a revolutionary, and really didn't understand that when a half again of the era of Judaic society had passed, people would be killing each other in his name. Thus we might see the tale of Jesus' resurrection implying only an elevation of his name from a political operative to a martyr.
Secondly: I grabbed a Latin dictionary from the legal library at my work and found nothing under "ad homynym".
Third: I'm glad you're amused by my perception that you don't understand drunkenness. And if you don't want me saying you don't get certain things, then don't ask me "Where is the serious part? First you say they were stupid nad now you throw out that they were drunk." (2+2, 8/14) Your question is why they weren't there for the resurrection. Yet you seem to assume that I'm speaking in the terms that I believe in the Resurrection of Christ. As a flesh resurrection, I don't. But a "contextual" resurrection of his movement three days later? I can believe it. And I can believe that the immediate disciples could possibly have been flat-out loaded.
Fourth: What do you mean by "Don't worry about me, I'm not chasing?" (2+2,8/20) Shall we read the original quote you bowdlerized?
"It sounds, in a couple of places (e.g.) when you mention how we're all supposed to believe the story, no questions asked), like WHAT YOU'RE PURSUING IS A RECONCILIATION OF TRADITIONAL DATA AND MODERN BEHAVIOR." (Tiassa, 8/18)
Now, the caps are the important part (I'm not to yelling yet, by any means). This tentative conclusion is meant to tell you what I'm seeing here. It is not an assumption of your motives, but a tentative conclusion drawn from your own statements. What I'm actually offering here is a bit of an olive branch. (Truly, it is futile to apply logic to conduct of faith.)
So, if you must be snide--"Don't worry about me, I am not chasing"--at least have the dignity to be snide in the context of the statement to which you are retorting.
And you completely missed the point when I wrote "Logic and conduct cannot come together in modern Christianity." (Tiassa, 8/18) I'll spare you the insult of the brain-dead context explanation.
Fifth: "I really don't think you could find two people in NYC who would agree with you, that the apostles were all drunk, and that is why they failed to wait for their guru to resurrect himself."
Okay, you're on. Conduct the survey, get a good sample. What's representative of New York City's population? Maybe a cross-section of a thousand? Two thousand? Or did you want to poll every last person in that town? Now, I'm able to look past the frivolity of such a dumb statement and take it contextually (where it's not so dumb as it is shortsighted). Let me know how the survey comes out. Oh, and send the results to Newsweek . . . that's right up their alley.
Sixth: If I go back to your original post, you're asking a great question. There wasn't a whole lot more that needed to be said, since the question can only be answered on faith. And if you ask me, no, drunkenness is not my primary theory. But it's a valid one. And that's why I'm still arguing with you. Try giving additional consideration to my 8/13 post which starts with commentary on Ray Bradbury. If you want my best theory, it's right at the end, when I assert that the disciples are actually a political cadre. But you didn't like that idea, apparently. Being drunk is a flippant answer; in case you didn't notice, the 8/13 post about drunkenness is ... say ... just a little shorter than most of my posts?
I never said that the disciples were stupid, as you assert in your first mocking post (8/14). Re-read the excerpt you included in your 8/13 reply to my longer post from that day. "What I'm getting at ... is that the disciples were not necessarily a brain trust. It is conceivable that they didn't even realize the religious implications of what they were doing."
Did I say they were stupid? Nooooooo.....
"First you say they were stupid, and now you throw out that they were drunk." (2+2, 8/14) Accepting the assertion which you have so conveniently compressed into stupidity, either option is fine with me. So they simply dropped the ball or they were drunk. They were human, mind you.
So what's the question? Who in their right mind would be drunk for his resurrection? Ask yourself a better question: When your political movement collapses at the betrayal and arrest of its leader, wouldn't you be underground, at the very least? Now, is it too much to imagine they were drunk?
Period.
Seventh: Stop editing your excerpts like sound-bites. That kind of crap should be left for sleazeballs like Bob Larson, Rush Limbaugh, or CNN.
Eighth: I don't mind sarcasm or even argumentative hostility. But it bugs me senseless when you're missing the point upon which you base your sarcasm.
Ninth: Elsewise is definitely a word. Which dictionary are you using? I might remind you that in certain American dictionaries, "internet" is not a word. So, then, how are we communicating?
Tenth: I'm curious here--what's your favorite novel? An honest answer here will help me interpret the basis of your argument.
It bugs me that we started out on nearly the same page. I'm sorry it's beyond your assessment of the period in question to consider that maybe some of them were just drunk. In the end, it's not that big a deal to me. I'm still arguing because I don't see what's wrong with the idea.
Whether or not Jesus himself was resurrected or any other possible event, there are reasonable reasons that I'm sure you and I have given people to excuse our own conduct. "Sorry about Friday, I was drunk." "Sorry about Saturday, I really didn't think you'd do it." Hello? Are you there? What makes Jesus' fans any different from you or I?--excepting the modern social dichotomy.
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Isn't it funny how nobody gets into the miracles performed such as he healed the sick, cured the blind, raised the dead, walked on water, fed 5000 with a couple of dead fish and some bread - but hang-on, he ....resurrected Himself.....Bullsh*t??!!!!!!
Odysseus
08-21-99, 07:51 PM
Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or skeptics. To me that is one of the things that makes it believable. Compare the Bible to the Q'ran; all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and tidy and consistent. That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a comic-book religion. By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point. It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites, but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.) Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?
As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, maybe, and confuse that with explaining.
------------------
What most people call "tolerance" today is in reality nothing more than an absence of values.
Odysseus
08-21-99, 07:58 PM
Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or skeptics. To me that is one of the things that makes it believable. Compare the Bible to the Q'ran; all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and tidy and consistent. That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a comic-book religion. By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point. It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites, but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.) Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?
As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians,Flash, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, that's all, and confuse that with explaining.
Odysseus
08-21-99, 07:59 PM
Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or skeptics. To me that is one of the things that makes it believable. Compare the Bible to the Q'ran; all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and tidy and consistent. That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a comic-book religion. By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point. It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites, but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.) Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?
As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians,Flash, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, that's all, and confuse that with explaining.
tiassa, Sorry, too drunk to post a reasonable letter to you. But I will, soon. Thanks for the thoughtful response..."elsewise" is a word???, but wait a second...... Help
New Search
Thesaurus
Site Map
No entries found that match your query. Here is a list of similar words. 6 words found.
To view an entry in the list, highlight it and click on GO TO.
naaa gal...'dis is not a word.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
Odysseus[/b]</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Much is made of "inconsistencies" in the Bible by the non-Christians or
skeptics.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">And.............???</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To me that is one of the things that makes it
believable.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Really???</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Compare the Bible to the Q'ran;</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I'd rather keep on with this
discussion about how Jesus' crew failed to show for the big one.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">all the tales of Mohammed are nice and neat and
tidy and consistent.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I hate tidy too.......</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That's why Islam has always seemed phony to me, a
comic-book religion.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">I see...too pat for you, no
inconsistencies.....</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">By comparison, the Bible and the Torah are full of
rough edges and sometimes even seeming contradictions. THAT'S THE STUFF OF REALITY, THE
WAY REALITY WORKS. This isn't orginal with me---C. S. Lewis makes this same point.</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Yes the novelist...St Louis!</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It is also full of unexplained mysteries, like the
character and nature of Melchizedek (Jesus calls himself a priest not like the Levites,
but of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.)</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Whew...confusing and twisty
stuff!!</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, another interesting, intriguing note: after
Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God curses the serpent to from that time
forward to "creep upon its belly." Most surviving species of reptile do
exclusively or predominantly. Only dinosaurs consistently did not. Does this hint at some
surviving arcane knowledge of earth's prehistory by those who wrote Genesis?</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">Is this a breakthrough for the
creationists or WHAT!</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2" color="#800040">So why do you think that the
disciples all failed to show up for the resurrection? Or do you just swoon for
inconsistencies?</font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> </font></p>
</body>
</html>
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
I was wondering about Jesus supposedly popping back from the grave. Can anybody really say that he did? I mean, there was no mass media back then. Anybody could show up, claim he was Jesus, pull of a few magic tricks, and the ignorant goat herders would believe him.
That is...assuming Jesus even existed to begin with. The story of his so-called life parallels too closely older myths and legends that I'm willing to bet the Christians fiddled with to fool the pagans.
Interested Party
08-23-99, 05:32 PM
2+2,
You're responding to something different than what was stated.
Dave said:
"It wasn't till after the resurrection that His followers then understood what he
meant by that."
You responded by citing what Jesus TOLD them.
There's a big difference between being told something and actually understanding it.
Much of what was said by Jesus was NOT understood, by his apostles nor anyone else (most of which, by the way, is still misunderstood today.) The connection comes not only after the resurrection, but after pentecost, at which time the things of the spirit to which Jesus referred, were understood.
2+2, while I haven't given much thought to the topics at hand over the last couple of days, I thought I should close my part of this particular exchange by giving you a reference for "elsewise". Check http://www.dictionary.com; it located "elsewise" as an adverb, meaning "otherwise", in the Websters Revised Standard Dictionary. Couldn't let the opportunity go by.
thx
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Funny, my server couldn't get that page...but I believe you.
But still I'm really busy, and look it is 2 :oo in the morning (I have head too much to drink again!), elsewise I would have finished my response to your long post.
Plus, I'm hooked on Front Page Editor, and I'm looking for a format that won't appear Limbaughian.
------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
[This message has been edited by 2+2 (edited August 24, 1999).]
tiassa
Okay, 2+2 ... let me try to establish a few things. </p>
First: "...the disciples didn't show because all that miracle stuff didn't happen
like it's written." (2+2, 8/20) Is that what this is about? Fine. You don't have to
convince me that the faith parts of the Bible are merely faith declarations; ergo, they
are fiction. </p>
<font color="#808080">Too bad for me that I didn't understand that from the beginning.
I am not so bright sometimes.</font></p>
As to this, let me say then, that I think part of why you and I disagree has to do with
how we perceive the Jesus movement. For my own part, I think there was a man called Jesus
who did lead a movement; I think that movement called for religious reform insofar as
Judaism's political value within the contemporary social structure was only apparent to
Pharisees. I think that Jesus died for being a revolutionary, and really didn't understand
that when a half again of the era of Judaic society had passed, people would be killing
each other in his name. Thus we might see the tale of Jesus' resurrection implying only an
elevation of his name from a political operative to a martyr. </p>
<font color="#808080">Now that's fascinating food for thought. What a century
that must have been. Cults with their secret writings courting and all powerful God
who wanted sacrifices. Plus all those other cults that were so tempting that were
run by women.</font></p>
Secondly: I grabbed a Latin dictionary from the legal library at my work and found
nothing under "ad homynym". </p>
<font color="#808080">Main Entry: <sup>1</sup>ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: <tt>(')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m</tt>
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer
to the contentions made </font></p>
Third: I'm glad you're amused by my perception that you don't understand drunkenness.
And if you don't want me saying you don't get certain things, then don't ask me
"Where is the serious part? First you say they were stupid and now you throw out that
they were drunk." (2+2, 8/14) Your question is why they weren't there for the
resurrection. Yet you seem to assume that I'm speaking in the terms that I believe in the
Resurrection of Christ. As a flesh resurrection, I don't. But a "contextual"
resurrection of his movement three days later? I can believe it. And I can believe that
the immediate disciples could possibly have been flat-out loaded. </p>
<font color="#808080">I see where you are coming from now. Jesus was a political
figure from the general population, who after death became wildly famous. You were maybe
that I could figure out that you were coming from "most of what is in the Bible is
fiction" point of view...but I couldn't make the jump so I didn't think you were
taking me seriously. Whew.</font></p>
Fourth: What do you mean by "Don't worry about me, I'm not chasing?"
(2+2,8/20) Shall we read the original quote you bowdlerized? </p>
<font color="#808080">Nahh, just forget that.</font></p>
"It sounds, in a couple of places (e.g.) when you mention how we're all supposed
to believe the story, no questions asked), like WHAT YOU'RE PURSUING IS A RECONCILIATION
OF TRADITIONAL DATA AND MODERN BEHAVIOR." (Tiassa, 8/18) </p>
Now, the caps are the important part (I'm not to yelling yet, by any means). This
tentative conclusion is meant to tell you what I'm seeing here. It is not an assumption of
your motives, but a tentative conclusion drawn from your own statements. What I'm actually
offering here is a bit of an olive branch. (Truly, it is futile to apply logic to conduct
of faith.) </p>
<font color="#808080">I see. You are saying that I am trying to figure out why
Christians believe some of the things they believe, when their "traditional
data" doesn't support those beliefs. Yes, I am. You are right.</font></p>
So, if you must be snide--"Don't worry about me, I am not chasing"--at least
have the dignity to be snide in the context of the statement to which you are retorting. </p>
<font color="#808080">It seemed to me that you had more to say about me, than what I
was talking about.</font></p>
And you completely missed the point when I wrote "Logic and conduct cannot come
together in modern Christianity." (Tiassa, 8/18) I'll spare you the insult of the
brain-dead context explanation.</p>
<font color="#808080">(Duh...?) <small>ouch</small>!</font></p>
Fifth: "I really don't think you could find two people in NYC who would agree with
you, that the apostles were all drunk, and that is why they failed to wait for their guru
to resurrect himself." </p>
Okay, you're on. Conduct the survey, get a good sample. What's representative of New
York City's population? Maybe a cross-section of a thousand? Two thousand? Or did you want
to poll every last person in that town? Now, I'm able to look past the frivolity of such a
dumb statement and take it contextually (where it's not so dumb as it is shortsighted).
Let me know how the survey comes out. Oh, and send the results to Newsweek . . . that's
right up their alley. </p>
Sixth: If I go back to your original post, you're asking a great question. There wasn't
a whole lot more that needed to be said, since the question can only be answered on faith.
And if you ask me, no, drunkenness is not my primary theory. But it's a valid one. And
that's why I'm still arguing with you. Try giving additional consideration to my 8/13 post
which starts with commentary on Ray Bradbury. If you want my best theory, it's right at
the end, when I assert that the disciples are actually a political cadre. But you didn't
like that idea, apparently. Being drunk is a flippant answer; in case you didn't notice,
the 8/13 post about drunkenness is ... say ... just a little shorter than most of my
posts? </p>
<font color="#808080">I guess, you have been to subtle for me. In the future I
will try and read deeper into your posts.</font></p>
I never said that the disciples were stupid, as you assert in your first mocking post
(8/14). Re-read the excerpt you included in your 8/13 reply to my longer post from that
day. "What I'm getting at ... is that the disciples were not necessarily a brain
trust. It is conceivable that they didn't even realize the religious implications of what
they were doing." </p>
Did I say they were stupid? Nooooooo..... </p>
"First you say they were stupid, and now you throw out that they were drunk."
(2+2, 8/14) Accepting the assertion which you have so conveniently compressed into
stupidity, either option is fine with me. So they simply dropped the ball or they were
drunk. They were human, mind you. </p>
<font color="#808080">All of my posts are based on the assumption that Jesus performed
miracles, and told his followers that he would rise from the dead in three days.</font></p>
So what's the question? Who in their right mind would be drunk for his resurrection?
Ask yourself a better question: When your political movement collapses at the betrayal and
arrest of its leader, wouldn't you be underground, at the very least? Now, is it too much
to imagine they were drunk? </p>
Period. </p>
Seventh: Stop editing your excerpts like sound-bites. That kind of crap should be left
for sleazeballs like Bob Larson, Rush Limbaugh, or CNN. </p>
<font color="#808080">So how's this? I'm not editing, just trying to go from
point to point, and make it easy to see who said what, and to look ....uh thoughtful.</font></p>
Eighth: I don't mind sarcasm or even argumentative hostility. But it bugs me senseless
when you're missing the point upon which you base your sarcasm. </p>
<font color="#808080">Ok. I will make an effort to be more focused.</font></p>
Ninth: Elsewise is definitely a word. Which dictionary are you using? I might remind
you that in certain American dictionaries, "internet" is not a word. So, then,
how are we communicating? </p>
<font color="#808080">So "internet" is a word, elsewise we couldn't
communicate?</font></p>
Tenth: I'm curious here--what's your favorite novel? An honest answer here will help me
interpret the basis of your argument. </p>
<font color="#808080">My favorite novel is <u>Under the Volcano</u> by Malcolm Lowery.
I've a bunch though. <u>The temple of the Golden </u>Pavilion Yukio
Mishima. The "Border Trilogy" by Colmac McCarthy is pretty amazing.
I read anything that Joyce Carol Oates writes, and marvel. I thought that <u>Towards
the End of Time</u> by John Updike was excellent, but the reviewers didn't.
Robertson Davies. Garcia-Marquez.</font></p>
It bugs me that we started out on nearly the same page. I'm sorry it's beyond your
assessment of the period in question to consider that maybe some of them were just drunk.
In the end, it's not that big a deal to me. I'm still arguing because I don't see what's
wrong with the idea. </p>
<font color="#808080">It's a good idea, really. Clearly something else actually
happened than what we read about in the Bible. I'm just pulling at threads in the
story. You are presenting an alternative perspective on who Jesus actually was.</font></p>
Whether or not Jesus himself was resurrected or any other possible event, there are
reasonable reasons that I'm sure you and I have given people to excuse our own conduct.
"Sorry about Friday, I was drunk." "Sorry about Saturday, I really didn't
think you'd do it." Hello? Are you there? What makes Jesus' fans any different from
you or I?--excepting the modern social dichotomy. </p>
Tiassa</p>
<font color="#808080">One difference between me and Jesus fans is that they believe
that they too will be resurrected. But then "beliefs" change in a
twinkling of an eye for me and them too. That's true.</font></p>
<font color="#808080">Mike
</font></p>
</body>
</html>
Odysseus:
As for the challenge that all us poor ignorant Chisters are afraid of you formidable logicians, don't make me laugh. There is nothing any more "logical" in your explanations of the basics---why the universe and we exist---than is found in the crudest creation myth. You describe, maybe, and confuse that with explaining.
Oh yes, the difference between describing and explanining. Or maybe you should have instead used the phrase 'explaining away'? Tell me where this logic fails:
When one faces a question with no answer, one can: a) make up a random answer, b) claim ignorance, c) systematically pursue the answer within the surrounding world, hoping that 'the truth is out there'.
Pursuing strategy a):
How many random answers to a question can one conjure? Infinitely many. And they can get as dumb and simplistic, or as elaborate and beautiful, as one can only imagine. What are the chances that any particular one of this infinity even comes close to brushing the real answer? Simple math here: 1/(infinity) = 0. That's right, the chances of any random answer (any random theory) to be correct are 0.
Pursuing strategy b):
That's where the agnostics are. It's a reasonable position, and shows that the person had at least contemplated strategy a) and eventually arrived at the inevitable mathematical conclusion. But what are we to do, other than enjoy the bliss of ignorance, and the mystique of the unknown?
Pursuing strategy c):
Now we are doing something constructive. We get out of our armchairs, abandon idle speculation and random beliefs, and start digging in hopes of finding a real answer. We do not claim to possess an answer, nor are we guaranteed to ever find one. But at least we got off our butts and went looking. Which, by the way, we (and even you) have been doing all our lives without realizing it. For example, how does one determine the amount of Honey Brown Ale one can consume before passing out?
<hr>
Now, I would like to re-emphasize for you that the theories of non-believers are not intended as the ultimate truth (contrast that to your faith) -- they are merely our current working approximation. But if the uncertainty of cutting-edge scientific theories bothers you, you are always free to crawl back into your armchair, shut your eyes to all empirical verifications for those pesky theories, and spin your very own cozy castles in the air. But I'll be damned if you don't end up feeling like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand -- running away from that weird and scary real world into a fake illusion of security and control.
To crudely paraphrase a fable from a famous Russian poet:
<pre>
A sage said to another:
"None of this is real,
The world is but a dream".
The other silently got up,
walked over, and smacked
the first one on his forehead
with a two-by-four.
"Not to worry," he said,
"This pain is not for real,
since this is but a dream."
</pre>
Regardless of the universe's true nature, what we have in front of us is here and now, and it's all we have to work with. Thus, perhaps it is not so intellectually dishonest to merely admit to ignorance, and deal with the here and now. In fact, I'd even say it's practical, and common sense (as opposed to burrying one's head into the sand).
As for the difference between 'explaining' and 'describing' -- I think you got it backwards. Science indeed explains the world through tangible physical entities, physical laws, and causal evolution of the universe. The Bible, on the other hand, describes a purported metaphysical framework, explaining nothing of relevance to real life. Science, for example, provides ample explanation already for 'why we exist'. It does not, of course, explain why the universe as a whole exists. However, I don't believe the Bible gives an answer to that question either. It merely says that God created the universe. But why? (Not to mention -- why does God have to exist in the first place? why does God exist?) Are you seriously claiming answers to these questions???
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 26, 1999).]
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.