|
Replies: 45
| visibility 301
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
3
Mar 3, 2024, 9:26 AM
|
|
Let's say it's the day after Jesus ascended to heaven. We have access to ALL modern (2024) science and court processes.
We bring in all the witnesses that knew Jesus before his crucifixion and supposedly saw him after he rose from the dead.
Imagine you are a juror on this case, but you never met Jesus or any of these witnesses.
With that context:
A. Could you reasonably assess the miraculous event happened?
B. If so, how?
Thought experiment B, answer the same question with the context that, for the sake of argument, the resurrection did occur. What changes in terms of the Juror's ability to assess the miracle, and why?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3074]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3564
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
2
Mar 3, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
If it's the day after someone claimed to see Jesus resurrected, I suspect most everyone would view it with a great deal of skepticism. If though, first claims of Jesus's resurrection occurred in 2004 and those making those claims have not waivered in their claims, to the point of being put to death today. Many would be less skeptical. At a minimum, most would believe the witnesses truly believed what they claimed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
2
Mar 3, 2024, 10:04 AM
|
|
>If it's the day after someone claimed to see Jesus resurrected, I suspect most everyone would view it with a great deal of skepticism.
This thought experiment is if it happens a day after he ascended, so ~40 days I think after he resurrected.
>If it's the day after someone claimed to see Jesus resurrected, I suspect most everyone would view it with a great deal of skepticism. If though, first claims of Jesus's resurrection occurred in 2004 and those making those claims have not waivered in their claims, to the point of being put to death today. Many would be less skeptical. At a minimum, most would believe the witnesses truly believed what they claimed.
That interesting, but my question isn't "do the witnesses believe what they claimed", my question is "can we assess that the resurrection occurred".
Nobody is calling these witnesses a liar in this thought experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
2
Mar 3, 2024, 11:33 AM
|
|
Happy Sunday. MissTulsa and I are playing hooky from church today. Some days you just get peopled out and dont want to see anybody. We do, at any rate.
This is a great approach, I think. It beats videos from a denier who doesn't know what he is talking about. And you're not as as smarmy looking as that guy: I've never seen you, but you cant be. However one answers, you have brought up the subject in a fun way. I will give you my own answer, but two things come to mind:
1. It may help to temporarily reword your first question, taking "miraculous" out of it. This is not to avoid that important issue - we will deal with it - but some people already believe a miracle cannot occur, and to those, no resurrection evidence is compelling, so there is no sense having the discussion. Maybe that is why you are asking question B, which is good, but I am going to answer your first question on the basis of, "If it is possible God exists, can those witnesses' testimony be assessed?"
2. I see no difference that modern science might make, or should make. Maybe I'm missing your intent, but I know of no relevant test one can perform. I think you would have to be in the tomb with the allegedly dead Jesus to perform a relevant test.
Yes, I very much believe those witnesses can be assessed as to truthfulness and accuracy. I think the approach would be to determine:
1. Are they in a position to know the truth?
2. Are they attempting to tell the truth?
3. Can their accounts be corroborated by other witnesses and surrounding events and circumstances?
4. Is there another explanation that better explains their testimony?
Yes, I think those questions can be addressed, and I believe the evidence for the answers supports their account.
That cannot be, will never be, 'proof'. OJ, and we had dna for that one. So, if your discussion here leads people to agree at least on this - "We are both drawing conclusions from what we know, and we can stop accusing each other of believing superstition with no evidence, or of refusing to believe evidence can exist" - that will be a happy day for this forum. Thank you in advance for that.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
2
Mar 3, 2024, 1:11 PM
|
|
>Happy Sunday. MissTulsa and I are playing hooky from church today. Some days you just get peopled out and dont want to see anybody. We do, at any rate.
I totally get it, my wife and I are the same way.
>This is a great approach, I think. It beats videos from a denier who doesn't know what he is talking about. And you're not as as smarmy looking as that guy: I've never seen you, but you cant be.
Don't make me blush
>It may help to temporarily reword your first question, taking "miraculous" out of it. This is not to avoid that important issue - we will deal with it - but some people already believe a miracle cannot occur, and to those, no resurrection evidence is compelling, so there is no sense having the discussion. Maybe that is why you are asking question B, which is good, but I am going to answer your first question on the basis of, "If it is possible God exists, can those witnesses' testimony be assessed?
I do understand your position, but from mine, I don't see how we separate the miraclousness. Not because it's a miracle (obviously if God is real, miracles are child's play to him, I grant that), but because it's outside our experience, and we don't have a way to assess it. We don't even have to get supernatural here, if we swap the "resurrection" for "aliens visited" I'd have the exact same issue with the evidence.
If we had other verified instances of aliens visited, then yes, I'd be more inclined to accept that the aliens had visited in this case, even though we are lacking hard evidence. That's the same reason eyewitness accounts work in court cases, we know people lie/cheat/steal, nobody has to get over that hump before making the assessment.
Yes, the reason for point B is to unequivocally say we aren't ruling out miracles before we even get started. That is not my position at all, I 100% grant it's possible God exists and Jesus resurrected.
>I see no difference that modern science might make, or should make. Maybe I'm missing your intent, but I know of no relevant test one can perform. I think you would have to be in the tomb with the allegedly dead Jesus to perform a relevant test.
I agree, my intent there was to just make sure we had access to all available tools and be as gracious as possible to the witnesses. Obviously, if we could test the resurrection, we could skip all this and do that.
>Yes, I very much believe those witnesses can be assessed as to truthfulness. I think the approach would be to determine:
1. Are they in a position to know the truth?
2. Are they attempting to tell the truth?
3. Can their accounts be corroborated by other witnesses and surrounding events and circumstances?
4. Is there another explanation that better explains their testimony?
Given question B, I don't think 1-3 are relevant. We can grant all of those things, they really saw the resurrection, they are telling the truth, and they all corroborate each other. That's not the point of my question, the point is, how do I, a juror, assess that the resurrection happened which leave us with #4.
Maybe you disagree, but my goal as the juror is to determine the most likely thing that happened given the evidence.
This is just speaking from person experience but:
- to my knowledge, I've never seen a resurrection, nor do I know anyone who has. This is something I have literally no experience of happening.
- I am however aware of people lying or being sincerely mistaken, these two things happen DAILY (probably hourly)
So when I'm presented with people telling me: 1. A thing I'm not aware of EVER happening, and 2. A thing that I know happens DAILY. How can I honestly say the MOST LIKELY thing that happened is the by definition, most unlikely one?
Please note, this is not specific to Jesus/Christianity/the resurrection. I feel EXACTLY the same way if we were talking about an alien visitation, which requires nothing supernatural and I 100% grant is possible.
I don't expect you to agree, I'm just saying that is how I would assess it. I don't see how I could say that the resurrection is the most likely thing in good conscience as a juror with the evidence provided.
This is where I think most people would say faith is required, and that's fine, it's just where you lose me because we could use that to grant anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
1
Mar 3, 2024, 1:46 PM
|
|
You blushed. Get over it.
The first half, above "This is just speaking...":
All I might add is that I would expect more corroboration than merely among them, though that is significant. My #3 can and should get somewhat extensive, and I think it does. And of course #4 is important.
Yes, I agree that you can't ignore the issue that the proposal is a miracle. I separated that from my answer because an atheist cannot, should not, agree to anything that supports a miraculous account. In that case, I would say to him, "Okay, forget that. All I want to discuss here is whether a reasonable person could conclude the events happened, if atheism is not a premise. I am not talking you out of your atheism, I am talking only about the quality of the evidence for this one account. We'll discuss later whether God could exist." Our atheist friend might say, "I can't do that." Fine. We move on. If he then later says to me, "You believe something with no evidence", I would have to remind him that he decided to not consider whether that is true or not, so he can't say that.
IE, it is very accepted to assume an unproven starting point in order to consider a point downstream from it. Yes, that leaves the starting point still in need of discussion. Maybe we are saying the same thing on that.
Second half, below "This is just speaking...":
I think I agree with that approach. As you say, aliens might have visited, and there is some personal evidence for it, but from what I have seen so far, I cannot accept that the best explanation is an alien. It is actually weak, imo. But what if the accounts passed the test I outlined? What would I think then? You raise a very good question. This is maybe where we depart. I might well insist on seeing an alien, as might you. And I did say, in not these words, "Okay, fine, but I want to see Jesus for myself." And I did. And you might say, "I have asked for that same thing, and ... nothing." What is the explanation for that?
Don't know. There are several possible ones, and that is another discussion, but just sitting here, I don't know. But that is a matter of what one concludes from the evidence, not whether it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
3
Mar 3, 2024, 2:10 PM
|
|
>All I want to discuss here is whether a reasonable person could conclude the events happened, if atheism is not a premise.
I think there might be a little bit of a misunderstanding of what I said because atheism is not a part of my premise above. I honestly don't think it needs to be brought up at all.
>I am not talking you out of your atheism, I am talking only about the quality of the evidence for this one account.
Yes, precisely, I am too.
> We'll discuss later whether God could exist." Our atheist friend might say, "I can't do that." Fine. We move on.
Sure, I agree if you had an atheist friend doing that, that would apply. It's just not relevant to my case above.
I am absolutely not saying "I can't do that" because I'm starting with "God doesn't exist", in fact I explicitly stated the opposite.
I want to be 100% unequivocal that in this thought experiment we are considering the available evidence only.
>If he then later says to me, "You believe something with no evidence", I would have to remind him that he decided to not consider whether that is true or not, so he can't say that.
Again, sure, just not sure how it's relevant to my response. I'm not claiming there is no evidence. I'm claiming the available evidence doesn't allow me to say that the resurrection is what most likely happened is all. Again, literally nothing to do with atheism and not saying there is "no evidence".
>I think I agree with that approach. As you say, aliens might have visited, and there is some personal evidence for it, but from what I have seen so far, I cannot accept that the best explanation is an alien. It is actually weak, imo. But what if the accounts passed the test I outlined? What would I think then? You raise a very good question. This is maybe where we depart. I might well insist on seeing an alien, as might you. And I did say, in not these words, "Okay, fine, but I want to see Jesus for myself." And I did. And you might say, "I have asked for that same thing, and ... nothing." What is the explanation for that?
Hmm, that is honestly a very surprising and validating response.
>Don't know. There are several possible ones, and that is another discussion, but just sitting here, I don't know. But that is a matter of what one concludes from the evidence, not whether it exists.
Again, I don't know who is arguing about whether evidence exists or not. I'm literally only interested in the available evidence and what we can deduce from it.
I'm still in a bit of shock that you just basically said that, given two otherwise identical scenarios, you have a clear bias in favor of Jesus and "don't know why"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
1
Mar 3, 2024, 3:54 PM
|
|
"Clear!!" (paddles)
> "I'm still in a bit of shock that you just basically said that, given two otherwise identical scenarios, you have a clear bias in favor of Jesus and "don't know why".
I think I can explain that. If I had seen an alien, my bias would be in favor of that. I have experienced Jesus for myself. My belief in NT accuracy is now both evidential and experiential. But I likely would not have pursued seeing Jesus if I did not know the evidence pointed that way.
When I said "dont know why", that was in answer to my hypothetical question from you, "Why have you seen Jesus but not me". There are possible reasons, but cant answer that without discussing it.
But of course you are asking about evidence. I think the assessment of the witnesses can be made today, and I think it weighs much to the positive. Would I still need a confirming experience to go from "evidence points in that direction" to "I am sure it did"? Maybe. Quite possible.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
3
Mar 3, 2024, 5:23 PM
|
|
I think that’s fine, we’ve reached a reasonable impasse i think. If what you say is true, then you simply have access to evidence I do not.
It sounds like the evidence we discussed above + direct experience would be enough and i agree, that would do it for me as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: CU, it probably doesn't matter to you, but I'm disappointed.
2
Mar 3, 2024, 2:04 PM
|
|
You mean because I referenced the videos? Sure, I understand, and I should apologize. But I want you to understand there was no intent to connect the video to you, though an apology is deserved.
Yes, I did wonder if you might see that as a shot at you, which I would not want to do. And I then pictured 4 of us at a card game, and that video coming up in conversation, and me saying, "Man, if you're going to look that weird, balance that with reasonableness". We'd laugh, hopefully, and you might say, "But I agreed with what he said about ...". You would not have seen my comment as being about you. I would not say it if there was a likelihood of that: the intent would be understood.
But that doesn't come across sometimes in print. I thought about that, and decided to say what I would have said had we all been together. When in doubt, avoiding offense or conflict is usually the best approach, but there is a line dividing likely from unlikely. I obviously was over that line, and I regret that.
None of that is an excuse. I sincerely apologize. I am just explaining why there was no intent, though that does not shift responsibility. I do apologize. I did not intend it to be about you. If anyone is sincere and thoughtful in their comments, it is you, and you have earned respect for that, and you have it from me. I am very sorry it sounded otherwise.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Thanks - all good!***
2
Mar 3, 2024, 2:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
No.
2
Mar 3, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
Assuming these witnesses came across as normal, sincere people, I would believe that they saw something they believed to be extraordinary. In other words, they weren't making up stuff out of the blue, and they probably weren't hallucinating. However, for me to believe that what they saw was God in the flesh, having risen from the dead flying up to heaven, I would need a great deal more evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. It would be like large groups of people now who see UFOs. They are seeing something, but that doesn't mean it's ET-looking aliens.
If it had already been established that the resurrection had occurred, that would be pretty powerful, but I'd still need a little more to believe the rest of the claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: No.
3
Mar 3, 2024, 1:12 PM
|
|
Yeah, I think you expressed in much fewer words what I was trying to get across above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: No.
1
Mar 3, 2024, 2:11 PM
|
|
Blushing people tend to chatter.
Your explanations were helpful. His brevity was understood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17918]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8942
Joined: 12/24/96
|
We don't have to imagine we are jurors...
3
Mar 3, 2024, 2:31 PM
|
|
Because we all are, actually. And we do get to judge. The evidence presented is from the Gospels and in the testimony of people who believe. And You have heard it. No debate about what more you need to believe, or why you will not believe on the evidence presented through the testimony of scripture and people.
You have two who argue, one for and one against. Just judge what is presented. If new evidence is found, then judge that when it is presented. Just know this, though, this is not going to be a [hung jury] situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: We don't have to imagine we are jurors...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 2:40 PM
|
|
Yawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
2
Mar 3, 2024, 8:05 PM
|
|
I agree with Tulsa. A very different, fun, engaging, refreshing, and innovative type of post. I kind of feel like we're 12 or so "not so angry" men, hashing it out. Where is our other stalwart, 88, when we need his input!
ClemsonTiger1988®
You defined your parameters very well, but I'll toss in a curve ball for consideration.
In the context of the time, the Resurrection may not have been unique, and depending on how common something has to become before it no longer has "miracle" status, maybe not even miraculous by the common definition.
A quick search shows 8 or 9 other cases of resurrection our jurors, at the time, might have knowledge of. Lazarus, Tabitha, etc. Even Paul was credited with a resurrection. In one case Jesus admitted though, "she wasn't dead, she was just sleeping."
If the parameters were changed to include that as allowable evidence in our trial, how would that affect people's decisions? Now, it is MORE evidence, but it is also only from one source that I know of, the Bible. So those two considerations may countrbalance each other.
(I'll assume there has been no contact by our jurors with Easterners who believe in reincarnation as a routine event.)
Does that additional evidence change anything for anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
That makes me happy, especially coming from someone that provides literal pages
3
Mar 3, 2024, 8:14 PM
|
|
of fun topics around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence
1
Mar 3, 2024, 8:40 PM
|
|
I think I'm with you on that one. At that time, in those circumstances and that context, with multiple credible witnesses and a limited event set, I think I could easily agree that Jesus was resurrected based on their testimony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
That would certainly make it more believeable.***
2
Mar 3, 2024, 9:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93685]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
My hypotheticals never land so I'm not entertaining anyone else's.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 1:55 AM
[ in reply to Re: Thought experiment based recent discussion around assessing NT evidence ] |
|
I know God personally. If I claimed your father wasn't real because I've never met him or even seen him you'd think I was an idiot since you're alive and every living person in history had a father. Even Adam and Christ whose father was God. Your life proves you have a father.
I am born of God's Spirit. I am a living spirit new. I must have a father for elsewise I'd not be alive. I'd be like the dead who haunt these halls.
 ...and they don't even know they are dead."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: My hypotheticals never land so I'm not entertaining anyone else's.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 2:33 AM
|
|
Wouldn't have been a party without you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
That's just it.
3
Mar 4, 2024, 8:43 AM
|
|
I believe there is a God, but that belief is deeply personal, based on my unique experience and circumstances. I believe that I have felt and witnessed God's presence, which is a big part of my reason for believing, but I fully acknowledge that is me deciding to assign the reason for those feelings to God. There is nothing objective about it, it is my belief, based ultimately on a leap of faith. I can claim to "know", and be satisfied with that, but it would be absurd for me to expect to be able to convince others with that claim. Saying "I know God and have personally experienced God" is very different than a person who testifies that they saw somebody rob a bank and then IDs them in a lineup. Those claims don't carry the same weight, for reasons that should be obvious to all.
Note: I find this kind of discussion and debate fascinating, but I totally respect everyone's personal experience and beliefs, even if they differ from mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: That's just it.
2
Mar 4, 2024, 9:12 AM
|
|
Yep, that tracks for me. I'm not saying you or ct88 aren't experiencing God, I'm just saying that to my knowledge, I have not.
I also know for a fact that I tried really hard to find God once I started having doubts, and I was left empty-handed. For whatever reason, he didn't respond in a way that I perceived.
Does that mean there is no God? Of course not. But it either means he's not there or has a reason not to reveal himself to me. I have no idea.
I do know this. If he's all-powerful and wants a relationship, he knows where to find me, and I'm 100% open to that. I have no idea how to find him if he's out there, I tried what the Bible says to do for years, it didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I get it.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 9:32 AM
|
|
If you have not experienced what I have, I can't possibly expect you to understand. That doesn't mean either of us is wrong. Personally, I just kept searching until I found something that resonated at the deepest level. That's not scientific or acceptable as evidence in a court of law, but I have come to a place where what I feel is not disqualified by my ability to think and reason. Now, there are very reasonable arguments against what I believe, but I am at a place where it all just feels right. My mind and heart are still open, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I get it.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 11:59 AM
|
|
>but I am at a place where it all just feels right.
That's what I think religion should teach. Find your way, whatever way that may be, to come to terms with the universe and existence. Find your peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: You may have seen this or know about it, but I watched this when it
2
Mar 4, 2024, 9:42 AM
|
|
I have not seen it. I’ll try to listen to it today on my walk
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: You may have seen this or know about it, but I watched this when it
1
Mar 4, 2024, 11:43 AM
[ in reply to You may have seen this or know about it, but I watched this when it ] |
|
As a younger man, this series (and Campbell's other ones to a lesser degree) changed my life. People speak of lights coming on, things clicking into place, etc. This is the video that did it for me (back on VHS, or maybe it was Beta, lol), more than any other.
Another is John Romer's "Testament", which is about the historical development of the Bible, or more specifically, the history around the OT and NT. Those two series literally set me on a 40 year-path of inquiry, and I've loved every minute of it.
They just made 'sense' of the way I was starting to see things as I grew, mentally, but couldn't otherwise express what I was sensing. No lie. Life changers. I can count on one hand the things that I know, without doubt, shaped who I am, and this is one of them. My hero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Regarding the Campbell series, your experience mirrors mine almost
1
Mar 4, 2024, 12:21 PM
|
|
exactly. It was a game-changer for me in the same way. It just clicked and every episode was filled with "aha" moments. Absolutely life-changing and set me on a knew path as well.
I will check out the Romer series as well. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Regarding the Campbell series, your experience mirrors mine almost
1
Mar 4, 2024, 1:14 PM
|
|
Now I have to go and watch all of his videos again, probably for the 10th time through the years.
I used to be a casual runner, and every evening I'd throw my Walkman on, pop in a Joseph Campbell tape, and find some new terrain, or maybe old familiar terrain, for an hour. No idea where I'd end up exactly. Just run out for 30 minutes, and then run back for 30 minutes. Learned a lot from the tapes, had a great time doing it, and even stayed healthy as a side-benefit. My own nightly "there-and-back-again" hero cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That's just it.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 11:55 AM
[ in reply to Re: That's just it. ] |
|
>For whatever reason, he didn't respond in a way that I perceived.
A similar path. There are things from my youth and young adulthood that convinced me, without a doubt, of God. I was a very pious young man. My mom still probably has some of my Bible study awards from Vacation Bible School, haha. And, I won a donkey once at a church raffle. Sadly, we couldn't keep him, so I got a toy red fire truck instead.
And I'm still surrounded by mystery. But my assessment of all that has changed over time. Call it doubt, call it growth, whatever. Intellectually, I can't discount the possibility of God. There's enough evidence, for me, to keep that window open. But I also can't buy into some of the current descriptions of God. And you can't lie to yourself, you know? In your heart, you believe what you believe, and you know what that is, or isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: That's just it.
2
Mar 4, 2024, 12:31 PM
|
|
>And you can't lie to yourself, you know? In your heart, you believe what you believe, and you know what that is, or isn't.
Exactly, that's why it's always been weird when people say you are "choosing not to believe". I don't know about anyone else, but that's not how belief works for me. I am either convinced by things or I am not, I do not get to choose which way that falls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Yep - pretty much the same.
2
Mar 4, 2024, 12:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: That's just it. ] |
|
Raised in the Southern Baptist church. Around age 11 or 12 I found out a close relative who was a little older and who I really looked up to, was gay. I knew him to be a good person, who believed it was important to treat people right, and always try to do the right thing. He was smart and funny and honest. According to everything I had ever been taught, he was wrong, he was a sinner because of the way God made him, and needed to change. Somehow that didn't seem right to me, it didn't make a lick of sense, so I began to question what I'd been taught. Something was very wrong with the story. At some point I came to question God, and his very existence. By age 20, I was a full blown atheist. That never felt right however, and didn't last. I realized that maybe it wasn't God that I was questioning, but what other people had told me about God. I realized they all could be wrong, but God could still be real. In my late 20s, Campbell's "The Power Of Myth" blew everything wide open and gave me a path forward.
If you tell me that The Bible is the inerrant word of God and that if I don't do X, Y, and Z, I will spend eternity burning in a hell that a God who loves me more than I can comprehend set up as part of his creation so that most of his children would burn, I'm calling BS. And to be clear, I'm not calling BS on God, I'm calling BS on the claims you are making about God, because they don't make one lick of sense.
That's my path, and I'm at a good place along that journey. Everybody's journey is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Yep - pretty much the same.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 1:59 PM
|
|
Yep, I've had entire blocks of my family move away from churches for that very same reason. At least two of my extended relatives have come out, and they're among the finest people, and citizens, you would ever meet. And their whole immediate families (two separate instances) just walked out of their congregations in solidarity. Not because it was revealed to anyone in the church, but simply because the church was so generically, and pervasively, hostile about 'those people'. I understand differing opinions, but inconsistency is tougher to take. That is, their particular churches weren't railing against eating shellfish every Sunday, you know?
>I realized that maybe it wasn't God that I was questioning, but what other people had told me about God.
Bingo. Post of the Year for the board.
And that's not to say anyone's particular perception of God is wrong, only to say that people's perception of what God may be, may not be the same. And it is undeniably personal, despite several orthodoxies. Even if 10,000 people experience something one way, that doesn't mean that you will experience it the same way, or even at all.
That was the big message I got from Campbell. That myths are not lies, and they are not fake stories...they are true stories, and true experiences, only described in different ways. And they are clues to our universal experience.
The underlying human experience is the same for every human...birth, growth, death. We all have that in common, from a jungle tribesman in New Zealand to the King of England to a rural farmer to an urban Yuppie. We all go through the same basic transformation. The details are wildly different for each of us, but the core path is the same.
And my life timing is about parallel to yours; first part of my life pious, second part of my life atheist, last part of my life agnostic. A homecoming for me, of sorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Yep - pretty much the same.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 2:59 PM
[ in reply to Yep - pretty much the same. ] |
|
>I realized that maybe it wasn't God that I was questioning, but what other people had told me about God.
I agree, In fact I think that's where things start to get quite dangerous. When other men start telling you what God thinks/wants... yeah.. that's a no from me dawg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58444]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Right. I appreciate and respect people's convictions regarding their religious
3
Mar 4, 2024, 3:23 PM
|
|
beliefs, but for the purposes of discussion and debate, presenting a religious belief as a matter of fact is a non-starter, usually coming from someone who is not interested in discussion, but rather just shouting their opinion as if it's from a position of authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Right. I appreciate and respect people's convictions regarding their religious
Mar 4, 2024, 5:07 PM
|
|
Episode 2. I think there are maybe 7 in total? You can click on the Youtube channel and they are all there I think. I just filled up my evening, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCVV1_7x0OY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93685]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I understand and know that's why you love discussions here.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 5:18 PM
[ in reply to Re: That's just it. ] |
|
Your inquisition has merit in God's eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93685]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I'd be a fool to claim your father isn't real.
1
Mar 4, 2024, 7:21 PM
|
|
I haven’t that’s something you keep falsely projecting on me.
I’m not claiming your god isn’t real, im claiming you havent shown me he exists like i could show you mine does.
You are welcome to do that at any time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 45
| visibility 301
|
|
|
50
