tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post607700164890000227..comments2023-10-30T07:45:43.656-04:00Comments on Thoughts and Ideas: Response to meA Wiser Man Than Ihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-70617487090597760922008-04-29T22:33:00.001-04:002008-04-29T22:33:00.001-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.A Wiser Man Than Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-41920698741452287972008-04-29T22:33:00.000-04:002008-04-29T22:33:00.000-04:00Maybe this is a simple example, but since middle s...<I>Maybe this is a simple example, but since middle school my instructors have told me to analyze the viewpoints of those "recording" history.</I><BR/><BR/>As well you should. Strictly speaking, no one was present at the Resurrection, unless you count the Roman guards who claimed--somewhat incredibly--that they had fallen asleep. <BR/><BR/>The Gospels were all written during the first century, and all were certainly favorable toward the Christian interpretation of the Jesus story. That said, we must consider whether or not they would have reason to lie about the essential facts of the story. As Paul was quick to point out, all hinged upon the Resurrection being true. <BR/><BR/>If the Gospel writers knew the stories to be false, why would they perpetuate myth? Perhaps to provide hope for the people, but the Jewish religion had already accomplished that. It didn't do much good to follow a false Messiah, especially one who was already dead. I suppose a conspiracy theory fits, but it would take exceptional foresight to predict that the sect would grow into a powerful Church, which would provide an excuse for perpetuating a lie.<BR/><BR/>The sources we have are reliable, and, especially considering the time period in which they were written. Against the four Gospel accounts, for instance, we have but one source for the existence of Alexander the Great, and that several centuries after his death. But we believe Alexander existed because of his conquest, just as we believe Christ existed because of His Church.<BR/><BR/>And we may readily believe the accounts of the historians because they seem plausible. Ultimate acceptance, of course, requires, on both accounts, an act of some faith.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything in my life that I know, understand, or believe in that is not based in my experiences.</I><BR/><BR/>I would say that is the reason most people believe, and I do not think it a poor one. <BR/><BR/><I>Could you also comment on your previous comment of "It's not as if Africa is converting en masse to Judaism?"</I><BR/><BR/>I was merely pointing out the exceptional quality of Christianity by comparing it to its predecessor. Aside from Islam, which is typically spread by conquest and the fear of death which threatens the apostate, Christianity strikes me as unique because it is a proselytizing religions. <BR/><BR/>All religions grasp at higher truths. One of them was so convinced of its claim to universal truth that it sent men and women to the corners of the earth to die for that Truth. It warrants serious scrutiny.A Wiser Man Than Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-8148866782685673472008-04-28T20:51:00.000-04:002008-04-28T20:51:00.000-04:00I very much enjoyed the discussion, although I am ...I very much enjoyed the discussion, although I am afraid much of it probably went over my head.<BR/><BR/>"Historical events are much harder than scientific theories to confirm or refute, unless there is a great deal of well documented evidence from credibly objective<BR/>sources."<BR/><BR/>The "evidence" condition in the above statement when applied to the events related to Christ's resurrection or imbuing of the Church with the Holy Spirit has always led me to question my faith in the Catholic Church. Maybe this is a simple example, but since middle school my instructors have told me to analyze the viewpoints of those "recording" history. That being said, I don't expect some sort of "revisionist Bible," but looking at some historical events contained within the Bible prevents me from using the events as a basis for my persepectives and actions.<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything in my life that I know, understand, or believe in that is not based in my experiences. Sometimes it feels like my actions are shaped by some intangible force that guides me to act in a Christian manner, but I now attribute this to my experience of growing up with Catholic teachings.<BR/><BR/>Could you also comment on your previous comment of "It's not as if Africa is converting en masse to Judaism?"<BR/><BR/>See ya around, pal.<BR/>MRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-25935335428466726132008-04-24T21:00:00.000-04:002008-04-24T21:00:00.000-04:00Like so many other religions, some much much older...<I>Like so many other religions, some much much older.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll grant you Judaism, but it's hardly the force it once was. It's not as if Africa is converting en masse to Judaism. <BR/><BR/>All other religions, like Judaism, have remained somewhat tribal. The only possible exception would be Islam, which is antedated by Catholicism by a good six centuries.A Wiser Man Than Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-59403941336881022008-04-24T11:32:00.000-04:002008-04-24T11:32:00.000-04:00Well articulated PJ. Catholics are a "community" w...Well articulated PJ. Catholics are a "community" with an authoritiarian epistimology that has proven durable.Like so many other religions, some much much older. I happen to believe humans need to transcend this old social model, expand this notion of community, and that the democratic revolution was the first step but the project looms large and time is short.troutskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16020298501632120830noreply@blogger.com