Several of the comments that flooded my inbox are issues that I anxiously want to address - such as, ethics, scripture, the human mind/consciousness, archeology, and historical reliability. (By the way, I never denied Alexander’s existence, nor suggested that the surviving texts, being written 500 years after his death, were evidence of such. It was only to illustrate a point about reliability of texts based on dating. Surviving texts regarding the details of Alexander’s life is from secondary sources written 500 years later. Surviving texts regarding Jesus Christ can be dated within 30 years of His death. We can certainly discuss this more, as well as archeology, in a future post, as I find them most fascinating).
Thank you all for providing such provocative material for us to flirt with in this arena of ideas. I appreciate the creative contribution from the several different disciplines presented here. Since we have embraced this theme of introducing our disciplines, I am a student with a Bachelors of Arts in Theology and am currently pursuing my Masters of Arts in Theology. I have an exam this Wednesday, hence the decision to not return to Blogworld until Thursday. However, every time I walked by my laptop, I would find a new comment in my inbox that screamed, “Read me!” As you may have presumed, I conceded.
A prevalent theme in the comments posted regarding science could be essentially stated, “You don’t know what you are talking about – do the research.” I can look at that statement and say, “Rightfully so.” I began to think, “I know there are scientists who have rejected macroevolution for a reason.” It would seem implausible to believe that their only reason for doing so would be for religious reasons. I don’t want to play a motive game. For regardless of what their motive may be, they will be laughed at if their claims lack validity. Therefore, instead of searching through Internet sources that lack credibility and scholarship, I decided to go to a source I knew would have intellectual credibility – Lee Strobel’s Case for a Creator. And may the rolling of eyes begin………………NOW!
Okay, please hear me out on this one. As someone had suggested in an earlier comment, Lee Strobel, Yale Graduate and once award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, interviewed scientists of various fields in order to gain their perspective on whether Darwinism is the best possible solution. The ideas that I quote are not Lee Strobel’s; rather, it is from different scientists, each of whom I will quote. Having been besought to investigate, I must say that I found the experience to be most rewarding. No wonder you science guys/gals love this stuff. Fortunately, these scientists explained different ideas in ways that someone, whose forte isn’t science, can understand. I hope that the people in the same position as I, who do not always understand scientific jargon, find this beneficial as well.
Our friend Zarathustra made an excellent suggestion that I would ask each of us to employ. If we are going to make certain claims that we expect others to deem indubitable, it would be helpful if we provided credible sources. Now, I’m not suggesting that you include a Bibliography with every comment. I am only suggesting that by providing a credible source, you can only further your position - unless of course, you could care less of the matter. Now, please know that the ideas that I write are from scientists. If you don’t agree with something suggested, please do not respond with a comment about how you found the person quoted to be strange, funny, or ugly. If we disagree with a perspective, I can only ask that we do so based on the validity of the claim, while offering an explanation, and not as much on our knowledge of the person being quoted. Having completed my reading, though I don’t consider it an exhaustive investigation by any stretch of the imagination, I have come to a conclusion:
Either these men have devastatingly misinterpreted facts, or Macroevolution is on the brink of extinction; thus, no longer the best possible explanation.
As perviously mentiond, science is certainly not my forte. Therefore, I do not write this in an attempt to debate as much as I do to understand. I respect the different genius presented in this arena and would greatly appreciate your thoughts. By the way - Gregory, you are certainly a very special individual for being as bright as you are at such a young age. Oh and Tommy, it’s good to hear from you again=). Within the next few hours, I will be trying to compile different ideas presented in this book. Although I obviously will not be able to cover everything that is suggested, I will include information that is pertinent to our discussion.
May the discussion regarding “the Best Possible Solution” begin! Well, in a few hours anway=). Stay tuned….
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Wow...
That was awesome.
Actually, the consensus is that the Gospels are dated some 40 to 50 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. And while the Gospels are set within a particular place and time, it does not prove that the events described therein actually occurred.
For example, when Jesus is described as having gone out into the desert for 40 days to be tempted by the devil, there was no one with him to record the events. Therefore, there is no way to verify that such a thing happened.
Tommy,
I hope you understand that Christ was not born on 0 B.C. They say it was unlikely for Him to have been born before 6 B.C. and generally suggest He was born on 4 A.D. Christ lived for 33 years. The earliest texts/fragments have been dated as early as 62 A.D. So where would that put our earliest text? Okay, fine - for the sake of argument - let's say 70 A.D. Hey, why not 100 A.D.? =) What is still your point regarding the comparison between surviving texts of Alexander (500 years from secondary sources) to the person of Jesus Christ? I'm failing to see your point.
Also, if you think that the only way we can rely on a text is if we know without doubt that someone was "secretly" following along during the moments of the recorded events, you are completely misguided about historical reliability. Half of what we know in anyone's history is dictated to the writers, if that. See major historian Josephus, one of the most relied upon Jewish historians, The Antiquities of the Jews. Actually, you don't have to go that far if you don't want. Just consider anything that has been written about war. Are you suggesting that everything we know about previous wars have been written by soldiers?
I'm sorry, Tommy - you strike me as a really bright guy - but that was just...well, nevermind=). I'm only kidding=).
I know I said I would only be back by the end of the week, but that was just too tempting=).
Jason, the reason why it would be problematic for the Gospels to be an accurate account of the events they depict if they were written after say 70 A.D. is that there is this nasty little intervening event called the Jewish War in which Jerusalem was destroyed, as well as numerous other Jewish population centers in the region.
I know that Jesus did not have a stenographer following him around on his perambulations throughout the region, though the lengthy Sermon on the Mount could not be remember in such detail from memory alone. Unless someone wrote down such a lengthy utterance, it would be impossible to have a word for word accurate rendition of what he said. I defy you to go to any public speech and then afterwards write down word for word everything that was said to 100% accuracy. It is possible that the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus's standard stump speech and that he had given it many times before, and that some of his followers knew it by heart, but the Gospels do not tell us if he spoke it more than once.
The Gospels contain accounts from many different points of view, including dialog of the tomb guards talking to one another and other such episodes which none of the Apostles could have been witness to.
That leaves us with two choices, either much of what was written was made up, or the authors of the Gospels travelled throughout the land of Israel, interviewing people, doing research, and patiently compiling their account. But the thing is, if the Gospels were compiled after the Jewish War, it would have been next to impossible to find and interview the guards who allegedly maintained a watch on the tomb of Jesus, or the shepherds who gathered outside of the manger where Jesus was supposedly born and so forth. Even if this is so, it would have taken years just to do the necessary research.
And assuming Mary lived for years after the death of Jesus, why don't we have more information about his childhood up to early adulthood? Surely Mary would have been amenable to regaling an audience with remembrances of Jesus during his teenage years. If the Gospels can tell us what the angle of the Lord supposedly told to Mary, surely we can have remembrances of Jesus as a teenager.
Come on Jason, if I'm supposed to believe that this guy was really the son of the Creator of the Universe, I expect a lot more than what we've been given.
And this leads up to one of the biggest reasons why I reject Christianity Jason. Let's say that you live in New York today in the 21st century and you need to get an important document to someone in California. With today's technology, you can e-mail the document as a pdf attachment to the recipient in a matter of seconds. Or, if the person is a bit of a technophobe, you can send the document via Federal Express and the recipient can get it the next business morning. What you would likely not do is have the document delivered via horse and buggy. It could take literally months to make it across the country, by which time the whole purpose of delivering the document had passed and its delivery moot.
Now Christians would have us believe that accepting Jesus Christ as our personal savior is absolutely necessary and vital in order to save our souls. Since God is the most powerful being in the universe, and, as we are told to believe, he can do ANYTHING, God can operate with greater speed and efficiency than a computer. And, since Christians would have us believe that Jesus is also God, Jesus has the same power too. So, if we accept this, and you must accept this or else you are accepting limits on the power of Jesus, then you must agree that it would have been entirely possible that Jesus could appear simultaneously to every soul on the planet in clearly remembered dreams night after night. Awakening each day, people would find out in conversations with family and neighbors that they had the same dream true and would share and reinforce the message with one another. Christianity would have spread to the entire planet in a matter of days at most. But no, we are expected to believe that having this option at his disposal, Jesus opted to go for the horse and buggy method of spreading the vital message of salvation.
Makes me think of a new slogan for Federal Express, "We guarantee we will get it to you faster than God."
Tommy,
You bring up excellent discussion material in this comment as well as the one regarding Hitler. In order to do the topics justice, I will address the these two issues, whether it be separate posts I'm not sure, this weekend when I have a little more time. I appreciate your patience.
How lovely Jason. You can even title the post "Why God Prefers the Pony Express Over Federal Express".
How lovely Jason. You can even title the post "Why God Prefers the Pony Express Over Federal Express".
That had me laughing at loud at work. Too funny!
Post a Comment