We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

[Warren Stupidity]

My attempt at a discussion of belief in Hell went so well that I thought it a good idea to initiate a discussion of another fundamental tenet of Christian faith, the resurrection of the dead.

Again, a simple question, as a Christian do you believe in the physical resurrection of the dead?

[rug]

1. Of course.

First Corinthians.

12But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised.14And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. 15Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.

If there is a God the resurrection of the dead is not difficult.

[trotsky]

2. Of what use is a physical body in the afterlife?

Would that not make heaven a real, physical place - the existence of which could be detected? A place with oxygen, food, and sunshine to let our resurrected bodies make vitamin D, etc.?

[rug]

3. You assume that the world to come is the same as the world that is.

Do you think this world will not end?

[trotsky]

4. OK, of what use is a physical body in the other world that you believe in?

And how will our physical bodies get there?

[rug]

5. I don't know but I'll be glad I have one.

[trotsky]

6. If you don't know what it will be needed for, how do you know you'll need one at all?

[rug]

7. That's not what you asked and that's not what I said.

In any event, I ponder often why I need a pinky today. Not that I don't like it.

A heads up. I'm off to get someone into drug court. Don't feel I'm ignoring you even though this is approaching the blind men's description of the elephant.

[trotsky]

8. Unable to provide an answer, you hint at bringing up one of the worst analogies created?

You have admitted you don't know what the physical body will be needed for.

You have also stated that you are glad you will have one.

What would be bad about not having one? Why are you glad you think you will?

Feel free to answer when you can.

[rug]

10. Actually that's a pretty apt analogy.

The only one introducing the need for a body is you. I rather enjoy my body. I magine I'd enjoy a resurrected body more.

How about you? You certainly need a body to exist now. I won't ask you if you need to exist because that's a rather silly question.

[trotsky]

15. You're saying you'll be glad to have a physical resurrected body.

Why?

[rug]

16. I prefer it to a decomposing cadaver.

Assuming you had a choice, which do you prefer?

[trotsky]

17. Since you haven't been that (yet), how do you know which you'd prefer?

Perhaps you are wrong about your religious beliefs, and your resurrected physical body will be tortured in hell forever. Does that change your choice?

[rug]

18. I am driven by the available evidence to conclude I do not prefer a decomposing cadaver.

The vision of an eternity of physical torture in hell is the stuff of Dante. I would be more concerned about the poena damni, but we've been there already.

[trotsky]

24. What is the available evidence?

I see you sidestepped the question - what if your religious beliefs are wrong?

[rug]

25. Morgues.

What if your beliefs about religion are wrong?

[trotsky]

26. What about morgues? Did you ask some cadavers there if being one is a bad thing?

Please answer my question first. This is about your belief in the need for a physical resurrected body.

[rug]

28. Feel free to believe that being a cadaver is a good thing.

Meanwhile, you have yet to answer my question in #16.

[trotsky]

29. I have no evidence that it's not, nor that there is any kind of alternative.

My answer for you is that eternity would be mind-numbingly boring. I'd probably want to kill myself to end it. I would choose a finite existence over an infinite one.

Now answer some of my questions.

[rug]

32. That would be true only if infinity is linear.

As to your question, if my beliefs are wrong, so what. Cf Pascal.

[trotsky]

34. 1) Prove it isn't.

2) Prove that even a non-linear infinity wouldn't be boring eventually. After you've lived every life in every way, experienced everything, after you've done that again one billion times, then what? Do it again? Why?

But if you're going to appeal to Pascal's Wager, I should remind you there can be serious consequences to believing in the wrong god, or worshiping the right god in the wrong way.

[rug]

35. Prove it is.

And I should remind you that that the serious consequences would affect you as well. However, I think neither of us need to worry about that.

[trotsky]

37. You started this subthread with an assertion that you haven't even tried to back up.

It's not my job to start proving things for you when you still haven't shown the willingness to hold up your end of the deal.

But I'm sure eternity will be a very blissful experience for you, after all you will be able to take delight in the fact that I will be spending it in the desperate desolation of having rejected your god.

[rug]

38. Actually, you interjected the notion of eternity. Why don't you define your eternity.

[trotsky]

39. Your claim was first.

I'm not playing your game.

[rug]

41. Me neither.

If you prefer to proclaim what eternity is like without defining it, that's your choice.

[trotsky]

42. If that's how you want to bow out again, fine.

Enjoy your last word.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. not to mention a pit of fire.

[AlbertCat]

74. I am driven by the available evidence

Were that the case.... resurrection would seem as ridiculous as it ... well... is.

[rug]

79. Considering you consider every aspect of religion ridiculous, that's a rather trite comment.

[AlbertCat]

119. Considering you consider every aspect of religion ridiculous,

I most certainly do not. Not EVERY ASPECT.

I do consider you ridiculous, so please stop putting words in my mouth, thank you very much.

[rug]

120. What aspect of religion do you not consider ridiculous?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. if you can find a belief in Hell from that person please get it in writing.

[rug]

23. It's in post 88 of your Hell thred.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I can't have a serious discussion with a person who spells "thread" "thred".

Once you demonstrate your ability to spell "thread" correctly we can discuss your belief in a physical hell where the resurrected physical bodies of the damned are tortured in a pit of fire for eternity.

[rug]

47. I can't have a serious discussion with a person who mistakes a typo for a thought

and considers inserting words into another's post to be discussion.

Clearly you haven't read the thread.

[laconicsax]

76. Assuming that you're right, what condition will it be in?

Do you get your body in the condition it was immediately before death? Do you get a younger version? Do paraplegics need wheelchairs in Heaven? Do the blind acquire the ability to see? If you suffered a significant brain injury, is it repaired? Do you retain tattoos and piercings?

[rug]

77. Discussed in 57/

[laconicsax]

113. That's not a discussion.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:09 AM - Edit history (2)

That's you quoting dogma that doesn't really answer the question directly.

If you die as a result of a forklift decapitation accident, are both your head and body reunited or does one grow a replacement of the other? If it's the latter, what happens to the other part? What does the process whereby Jesus gives you a body like his entail? Does everyone turn into 30-something middle-eastern men? Does the version of Jesus' body you get include holey palms?

There are other questions, but I think you can see how inadequate #57 is at explaining things.

[rug]

114. Neither is this.

I once argued with someone about whether or not Jesus' foreskin, if recovered from his bris, would be considered a relic. It turned ugly, I vomited, had some coffee, and finally sobered up. Never again.

[laconicsax]

115. Only because of your unwillingness to participate.

I asked clarifying questions that stem from the ambiguous nature of what's written on the subject of the resurrection of the physical body.

For example:
If John the Baptist is resurrected, what happens? Does his body grow a new head, his head grow a new body, or are his head and body reunited? If they're reunited, how does that work if the head and body are in separate locations?

#57 cites the Eucharist as giving us "a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies." What does that mean, especially since the Transubstantiation is 100% false? Does that mean that "Christ's transfiguration of our bodies" is similarly false?

If you're unable to answer, that's one thing. If you're unwilling, that's another entirely.

[rug]

117. You left out the rest.

"That said, I don't think anybody has spelled out with particularity what that means or "how it works". That is the realm of speculative theology".

BTW, the Transfiguration is not transubstantiation.

[laconicsax]

129. Is the Eucharist not the wafer and wine that's supposed to turn into the body and blood of Christ?

You know, in what's commonly known as the transubstantiation?

I accept that you are unable to answer. You could have saved yourself some typing by simply responding, "I don't know."

[rug]

130. Do you know what the Transfiguration is?

[laconicsax]

131. The bit where Jesus goes up a mountain and starts glowing?

Yeah, I know what that alleged miracle is.

The stuff you copied and pasted into #57 isn't talking about that. It says the Eucharist gives a clue about the transfiguration that will happen and then goes on to talk about the Eucharist and how "participating in it" allows for Jesus to transfigure people's bodies. The Eucharist is part of the Transubstantiation, not the Transfiguration. You doubtlessly know this.

Also, don't you think that an official document of the Church (like the Catechism) would capitalize the "T" at the start of "transfiguration" when talking about the miracle of the Transfiguration and leaving it lower-case when talking about some other kind of transfiguration?

Really, rug. If you simply don't know the answers, just say so. There's no shame in not knowing something, especially when there might not even be an answer (implied by "I don't think anybody has spelled out with particularity what that means or "how it works"&quot .

[rug]

132. It doesn't say a word about the Eucharist.

Really, laconicsax, you should take the trouble to learn about the things you so regularly and religiously attack. It's embarassing.

[laconicsax]

134. Are you kidding me? Did you not read what you posted?

Here's what you posted in #57, posted again so you don't need to scroll down and back up again:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2H.HTM

1000 This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection^554[/link]

1001 When? Definitively "at the last day," "at the end of the world."⁵⁵⁵ Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ's Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. and the dead in Christ will rise first.⁵⁵⁶

Risen with Christ

1002 Christ will raise us up "on the last day"; but it is also true that, in a certain way, we have already risen with Christ. For, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, Christian life is already now on earth a participation in the death and Resurrection of Christ:

And you were buried with him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead .... If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.⁵⁵⁷

1003 United with Christ by Baptism, believers already truly participate in the heavenly life of the risen Christ, but this life remains "hidden with Christ in God."⁵⁵⁸ The Father has already "raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."⁵⁵⁹ Nourished with his body in the Eucharist, we already belong to the Body of Christ. When we rise on the last day we "also will appear with him in glory."⁵⁶⁰

And yet you say "It doesn't say a word about the Eucharist."

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I was agreeing with "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised"

but it seems that is too reasonable.

[rug]

11. Reason follows a datum.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. where is this datum?

I'm fascinated.

[Silent3]

13. "empty is our preaching; empty, too, your faith"

I'll go for that as the most likely option.

[rug]

14. "Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman, but believing what he read made him mad."

- George Bernard Shaw

[Starboard Tack]

53. Really? You believe in a physical reincarnation?

How do you envisage that? Are we reincarnated in human form, or some other physical form? Do we still have bodily functions? I could never get my head around any of that. I could accept Buddhist style reincarnation, where we come back time and again on a quest for Nirvana, but the heaven and hell concept seems rather bleak.

[rug]

57. Really.

It's a basic tenet.

From the Catechism:

"988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God's creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.

"989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day. Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

'If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.'

"990 The term 'flesh' refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The 'resurrection of the flesh' (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our 'mortal body' will come to life again.

"991 Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings. "The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live."

'How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. . . . But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.'"

And:

"997 What is 'rising'? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection.

"998 Who will rise? All the dead will rise, 'those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.'

"999 How? Christ is raised with his own body: 'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, 'all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear', but Christ 'will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body', into a 'spiritual body':

'But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel. . . . What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. . . . The dead will be raised imperishable. . . . For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.

"1000 This 'how' exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:

"Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.

"1001 When? Definitively 'at the last day', 'at the end of the world.' Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ's Parousia:

'For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.'"


That said, I don't think anybody has spelled out with particularity what that means or "how it works". That is the realm of speculative theology (and no, that is not a redundant term.) At best, there is a hint of it in the Transfiguration in the description of Moses and Elijah.

Anyway, here are some thoughts on it:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

I am more surpised at the surprise than at the belief. This is a well-known doctrine.

[Starboard Tack]

61. I know it is a well-known doctrine. I'm just surprised that some still take it literally.

I remember well, going through confirmation classes, struggling with the Anglican version, which is very similar, though not as literal. Finally, I couldn't wrap my head around the idea that a benevolent god would allow such evil in a world he created. I liked Jesus, but didn't like the stories of miracles, which I found belittling and quite ridiculous. I truly doubt that he would have endorsed any of those claims by some of his disciples. To me, he was always a humble man who taught "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Do unto others", not circus tricks to convince followers. I am truly amazed that anyone takes any of the resurrection story literally. I can see how it might resonate allegorically. There is much wisdom in all fable. Not so much in dogma.

[rug]

62. I look at it like this.

It is an extraordinarily bold claim but, without it, it is simply a philosophy not worth the argument.

[trotsky]

63. It was an extraordinarily bold claim that a UFO hiding behind a comet...

was going to take you away if you cut off your balls, dressed in all black, wore sneakers, and killed yourself.

There's just as much evidence for your belief as there is for that one.

[rug]

65. Your standard of evidence is inapplicable.

[trotsky]

66. The evidence for each:

Some guy once said it.

[rug]

67. Ok. What guy said it? To whom? For what purpose?

Your evidence, please.

[trotsky]

68. Have you forgotten about this already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite

Proving his devotion and belief, he even offed himself with his followers. He wouldn't have died for his beliefs if he didn't believe them to be true, would he?

As far as the other thing, yeah, you pointed to a quote in a book. Can you prove exactly who wrote that? And to exactly whom he was speaking? And for what purpose?

[rug]

69. We're not talking about UFOs. Why don't you show your evidence for this specific claim?

It's a poor argument by analogy.

See, if you say it's all made up, because it lacks your standard of proof, that's fine.

However, you cannot deny this belief exists, is held by millions, and has been propounded for centuries. That is simply an objective phenomenon.

If you are correct, now is the time to substantiate your claim. Assuming it is made up: who made it up, to whom was it made up, for what purpose was it made up, and how has this falsehood been maintained? Explain this factual phenomenon by your own standard of evidence.

[trotsky]

80. I didn't say anything about meeting a standard of proof.

I said there's the same evidence of each. A guy once said it.

Now apart from the argumentum ad populum fallacy, what ya got to prove me wrong?

[Starboard Tack]

64. Fair enough. Each to his own.

[Angry Dragon]

72. A very big 'IF' in your last sentence

[turtlerescue1]

12. Is this something we need to know Today?

When Yeshua appeared the first time to his boys, apparently the physical body went through solid object/wall. When he appeared prior to that he seemed to be a gardener/caretaker. When he appeared to the two on the road, they didn't understand until much later,so it must've seemed he was just another mortal. When he appeared to Thomas, the nail holes were apparent to Thomas. When he was on the shore, and the guys came ashore, a fire was already made and apparently so was a meal. The famous conversation with Peter, they were all walking apparently, "Then tend my sheep."

Maybe its just not something to KNOW until we need to.

Could it be a Dimensional issue?

Is it relative to our DNA strands, their ancestry?

Personally I still struggle with the Trinity. So far my infamous 360 Degree Walk, Squat and Ponder are still walking, squatting and pondering.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I'm just curious what it is exactly that christians believe.

They seem most reluctant to admit to much of anything specific. Although rug has pinned himself down on the physical body back from the dead part. Sort of gruesome spectacle, Global Dawn of The Dead, or is that Universal Dawn of the Dead? How do the intelligent life forms on other planets figure into this? Does the Creed get a major rewrite? Are they not possessed of a soul? Does each planet get its own end time? Who feeds the dogs?

[rug]

22. "pinned"?

Your answer to her question is patently dishonest.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. so is it a universal dawn of the dead? Global?

is the end time universe wide or merely earth bound?

[rug]

33. Yes, it's all of that.

Plus there are Burger Kings on every planet.

Ooh, you've pinned me.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. So the entire universe?

[rug]

45. And all the multiverses.

There will not be a single galaxy without a Burger King.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. how that is any less ridiculous than what you actually believe, whatever that is, is

a subject of Poe's Law.

[rug]

58. Ridiculous? You don't think there are Burger Kings in the galaxies?

Or do you simply think thousands of years of human thought on death and the afterlife is the same as that premise?

[AlbertCat]

75. thousands of years of human thought on death and the afterlife

Thousands of years of made up crap.... who cares?

So when you resurrect, are you in the shape you were in when you died? riddled with cancer or decapitate from a car accident or something? Or do you get to be any age you want? Can you come back as the opposite sex?

Can a belief be more ridiculous than resurrection of the dead? Obviously made up, for thousands of years, by folks ignorant of what their bodies were, how they were made or how they worked.

Of course in a few hundred years, science has answered many of those questions, making the idea of resurrection just plain dumb.

[rug]

78. "Obviously made up"

By whom, to whom, for what reason?

It's also fascinating to see the same questions, virtually identical, from self-labelled atheists, scoffing about the condition of a resurrected body. It's like a quiz from atheism 101.

[trotsky]

81. Actually it comes from similar reactions to an absurd, unsupported claim.

Your challenges for US to provide the justification for YOUR claim are hilarious.

[rug]

82. There is a corollary to your claim that it is a made up, insupported claim.

That corollary has yet to be either explained or demonstrated. There is a word for that and it's not "hilarious".

Get back together. I'm sure you'll be able to come up with something.

[trotsky]

83. What is the difference between your claim and Marshall Applewhite's?

The number of people who believe it, and the length of time it's been around are irrelevant.

Get together with your priests and maybe you can come up with something that'll convince someone who hasn't already swallowed the propaganda.

[rug]

84. I'm sure you can explain Applewhite's claim and how it came to be.

Do the same for this belief. I'm all ears.

[trotsky]

85. Uh, it's *your* belief. It's *your* job to explain how it's different than Applewhite's.

I realize you can't do it, and that's why you are using this desperation tactic to try and make it look like it's my job to back up your claim. But sadly for you, it is not.

[rug]

88. I already said I will assume you are correct.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your claim as to how it was made up, by whom and for what purpose.

Since you are hung up on refuting water by describing sand, let's move on and explain the observed phenomenon that this belief exists. Surely you have considered that.

[trotsky]

89. Doesn't work that way, rug.

I know you really, really believe you can get out of backing up your claim this way, but you can't. Back up what you say. Show me the (non-fallacious) evidence that backs up your claim.

Please note, it was also an observed phenomenon that belief in Applewhite's claim existed. Several dozen dead bodies attest to that fact, including his, so you can't argue that it wasn't taken very seriously by even the guy who made it. So again, no different than yours. Try again.

[rug]

90. Actually, it does.

What you are arguing is that, under your, conventional, standad of evidence the belief is absurd.

I am arguing that the conventional standard of evidence is inapt for religious belief in general, and this belief in particular.

You are arguing evidence not belief.

Since that is a fruitless endeavor, I asked you to explain, using your standard of evidence, to explain how this belief was propagated and why. You haven't. I would say try again, but you have yet to try at all.

[trotsky]

91. Do you think Applewhite's UFO claim is absurd?

Simple yes or no question.

What's your answer? Your answer to the question will tell me how I should proceed in jumping over all the hurdles you are putting in the way, so I need you to answer. What I am asking of you is trivial compared to what you're demanding of me, so please provide the answer.

If you refuse, I will also refuse to continue this tired old routine of yours so at least you'll have your trusty escape route.

[rug]

94. Yes.

You may now answer my questions.

[trotsky]

97. Your commitment to evasion is remarkable, rug.

You'll sign up for a blatant double standard just to keep from having to support what you say. Not sure if I should be impressed by that, but it's quite fascinating.

All we can know today is that the belief in a physical resurrection (as it pertains to your religion) started with a person commonly believed to be Saul/Paul of Tarsus in an allegedly written communication to a group of people. It spread because it was a religious belief of this group, one they had a vested interest in propagating because it offered a hopeful view of life after death.

Again, same as Applewhite's.

[rug]

98. And your discernment of religious beliefs is rather flat.

[trotsky]

101. I answered your questions - are you giving up now?

Better luck next time!

[rug]

104. I admit I have had engrossing conversations about whether people shit in heaven.

But then I graduated high school.

[trotsky]

105. And now begin the personal attacks.

Classic (and classy) rug. I do enjoy seeing this play out the same way every time, with you running away dropping a cloud of insults as you flee.

[rug]

106. That is hardly a personal attack.

How is discussing how resurrected people defecate different from this:

"Would that not make heaven a real, physical place - the existence of which could be detected? A place with oxygen, food, and sunshine to let our resurrected bodies make vitamin D, etc.?"

Believe me, I have had that conversation many, many times but rarely after high school (which was a Catholic high school by the way) where such conversations were common.

They were inevitably sophomoric.

[trotsky]

107. You've abandoned the discussion and turned to insults.

As usual.

[rug]

109. Not true. You would know it if it were.

[trotsky]

111. One thing I do know is that your claim is no different than Applewhite's.

Since you never gave any proof otherwise. Have fun with your last word - make it really snappy!

[rug]

112. "And what need have the Risen with DNA?"

[AlbertCat]

123. this desperation tactic

Ever see or read the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"?

They are always playing absurd games. One is called "Questions"

The rules are you must answer every question with a question. You lose points for statements, repeating a question, or rhetorical questions.

The result, of course, is that you get nowhere.

Rug plays this game, and variations of it (like "Must have the last word&quot all the time.

[AlbertCat]

121. By whom, to whom, for what reason?

By leaders of hunter gatherer groups I imagine.

To the ignorant followers of these charismatic Stone Age leaders.

For the reason of keeping them in thrall to them, of course.

If you can get others to believe the promise of doing anything but actually dying (come back, go to paradise) when one dies, you can get the duped to do all kinds of things... give you money, treat you like a king, go to war for you.....


Religion is just ancient government. The Catholic Church is a blatant example of such.

[rug]

122. You imagine hunter gatherers concocted the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead?

I, for one, am utterly persuaded.

[AlbertCat]

124. You imagine hunter gatherers concocted the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead?

You imagine someone else did? You imagine there is a unique idea in the Bible????

OK... how about Bronze Age goatherds then.

[rug]

127. Ok, so now you claim (imagine?) Bronze Age goatherds invented this Christian doctrine.

Apparently you know less about anthropology than you do theology.

[mr blur]

108. Well, it has about as much practical purpose.

It doesn't really matter what nonsense you believe - you're never going to find out that you were wrong. Comforting, believing in a god, is it?

[rug]

110. Not nearly as comforting as wallowing in mistaken smugness.

[laconicsax]

116. Whatever gets you through the day, rug.

[rug]

118. I didn't know DU had a wallowing icon.

[AlbertCat]

125. I didn't know DU had a wallowing icon.

It has lots....

any one of your posts will do.

[rug]

126. I'm actually trying to extract sense from that post but I'm failing.

[mr blur]

133. Well, I guess you'd know nt

[Dorian Gray]

27. Honestly

I have the most trouble with this tenet. I do believe in a spiritual resurrection. The physical I have trouble wrapping my head around. I know there are apologists who explain it well, and I could try to make one of those arguments. But I don't have the inclination to do so right now. So, honestly, yeah... this is one of the major tenets of Catholicism and I do have difficulty with it.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. thank you for an honest answer

I understand the spiritual side of belief. I remain baffled by those who continue to insist on literal belief in myths. Your answer is what I would expect here.

[Dorian Gray]

87. I'll be the first to admit

that my faith is challenged on a daily basis, and there are times where I'm a more adherent Catholic than others.

It is interesting that the church no longer disallows cremation upon death, so the "walking zombie" thing isn't what they're going for with the physical resurrection.

[SwissTony]

36. If there's a physical resurrection, do you get to choose the "age" of your body?

Or are you stuck with the creaky 95 year old bucket of pain you went out in?

If you were morbidly obese all your life, will your new body reveal the slim you that was always hidden?

If you had Type I diabetes all your life, will your new body be free of diabetes?

If your new body is not a body you once wore during your life, can it really be said to be a physical resurrection?

[EvilAL]

40. Good points,

I can't imagine someone being a paraplegic for eternity as "heaven".

[Warren Stupidity]

49. there is some sort of metaphysical car wash and detailing that happens

that makes your resurrected body all shiny new again. There would have to be - what if you were like blown to bits or cremated?

[SwissTony]

51. Yep. And what about infants who die?

Are they doomed to be infants forever or do they manifest as adults they never became?

[OriginalGeek]

54. Star Trek style transporter

Since it basically takes you apart at an atomic level and then encodes the atomic data and re-assembles it at the other end, the computer controlling all that should be powerful enough to to add and subtract some data to get rid of your colds and warts and cancer and fat and anything else you want to change.

It makes perfect sense!


I hope it happens soon though - i have a tooth that is killing me.

[struggle4progress]

48. Credo quia absurdum

[Warren Stupidity]

50. which sort of renders discussion useless.

[struggle4progress]

55. After examining the subthread under Reply #1, I'm not convinced

this thread was destined to spawn useful discussion

[cbayer]

56. Ya think?

[rug]

59. It's all my fault. I mistyped "thread".

[struggle4progress]

70. Well, I'm afraid I don't necessarily believe in the resurrection of this thread

[rug]

71. !

[trotsky]

86. Useful discussion would have been someone who believes in physical resurrection...

coming up with some justification for the belief other than "it's in this book."

I know, that makes me a radical evil militant fundie atheist. Sorry.

[struggle4progress]

92. Would you like me to say explicitly that Christianity isn't about common sense or mere logic?

That, I can concede instantly

Christianity involves a certain view of human nature, and it involves a certain view of "what is essential"

You are, of course, entirely free to adopt a substantially different view of human nature and a substantially different view of "what is essential" -- although, in my opinion, you would be gravely mistaken to do so

[trotsky]

93. This is a unique issue.

A physical, material claim is being made. This has ventured into the dangerous "subject to common sense and logic" realm that most believers are careful to avoid for obvious reasons.

Of course, the Christian Fred Phelps thinks that people living in the "sin" of homosexuality are in danger of burning in hell - and that it's essential he bring the message of god's truth to warn them. If you don't believe we should be free to ask questions and demand justification for that belief, that's fine - but in my opinion, you would be gravely mistaken not to.

[struggle4progress]

95. That particular field has been ploughed back and forth for about 2000 years:

your objection, that Christianity is dangerous and contrary to common sense, seems to have been raised often enough by those very very practical ancient Romans, who most naturally regarded the belief that G-d had been crucified, and was dead and buried and resurrected, as idiotic superstitious nonsense -- and often enough by their successors

I say that you may, of course, make your existential choice about on which side you will be, the side of the very practical Romans or the side of their crucified victims

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders

[trotsky]

96. Then you can be on the side of Phelps.

I'll happily oppose him and the religious basis for his hate.

[struggle4progress]

99. I regard Phelps as a heretic

[trotsky]

100. Good for you.

You're still enabling him.

[struggle4progress]

102. Bye

[trotsky]

103. I certainly understand your unwillingness to address the problem.

It puts your own beliefs in a precarious position.

[AlbertCat]

128. I say that you may, of course, make your existential choice about on which side you will be,

How generous of you!

Smugly, arrogantly, condescendingly generous....

[rug]

60. Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;

et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.

[dimbear]

73. For an interesting take on this see Charles Baudelaire, "Le squelette Laboureur"

sometimes translated as "The hardworking skeleton"

http://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/poemes/charles_baudelaire/le_squelette_laboureur.html