Elizabeth Johnson in the theological firing line

I think the whole precept is irrelevant.

Male and female are physical characteristics of the creature. Male and female created He them etc.

What has that got to do with God, who is a spirit?


To make God "male" or "female" is to make God in our image (either of them). Its a nonsense. My understanding of the scripture is that God is God, we are creatures, some male some female. Thats it.

I do not consider God to be male anymore than I consider him to be a rock or a tree or a bird. All these things are simply physical creations and God as we know is the creator of them....not one of them.



Theres my tuppence.


Beece

Hello Beece,

"I do not consider God to be male anymore than I consider him..."

Hang on. Why "him" not "it" then?

Maybe God's a hermaphrodite. Maybe that would be a good compromise in the whole women priests debate. Of the tiny number of women who want to become priests, only the hermaphrodites should be allowed.

I don't know what all the fuss is about myself. I've met quite a few Marys who are priests.

Matthew 23:37

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

"Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you."

Isaiah 49:15

i.e. God is more of a mother than a human mother.

"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

Isaiah 66:13

Peter,

Who is led astray?

Saint Paul to the Philippians: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

There's a fairly strong case to be made that Paul was partly mad, but I'm quite happy to accept this injunction.

Hot dang it, I just quoted the Bible.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sheep?

Dave- nice to see all the hours you put in building bridges here being destroyed :s

How important is this make believe in your life Ryan?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Burn Her"

Section three Malleus Maleficarum

How about you stop with your approach.Why make a jibe about a persons mother like you did in post 7. Lsv wasn't even talking to you. Why would you feel the need to attack someone like that

Prince Valiant! Blancmange.

Well you carry on nesting and venting your spleen , it's what you're best at. Maybe taking up a sport or having someone take care of your libido might make you a less frustrated person. Anyway I hope you get your move to London, cos you seem intent in making others suffer through your own unhappiness in the meantime. This certainly is a * mean time * for you lol.Maybe you could ask a Christian here to pray for that move to London?

I'm not sure where you cooked up the desire you suppose I have to move to London. Having spent a decade there it's the last place I want to be. It comes even farther down the list than Belfast of places I'd like to be now.

And you do reveal quite a lot about your existance by the jelly splats you hurl around, thinking they're barbed. Dear-oh.

To warp a mind into such a state of self-hatred that it rejects and resents any expression of self-love or righteous anger outside of the bounds it's familiar with. Yup, that takes religion Ryan. Now which bit of it were you trying to tell me was good for me? And which of us here seems bitter?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Anyway, wherever it was you were saving to move to. What's barbed about taking up a Sport, getting your libido looked after, not taking your frustrations out on others with the venom & vitriole you do. It might make you happier and less willing to vent your spleen,which often seems totally out of sync

You're the boy doing the spluttering by the look of it. It's like being chased by an old spinster with a brush. Thanks for your concern about my getting enough sex. Tsk. You do realise that by the attitude you take to me you are revealing all the little niggles in your own life? Because 90% of what you fire at me is completely without basis. You're projecting ryan. How about you take up a sport. I'm as healthy as a trout. Oh look! I just mentioned fish. For the second time. Do you think it's becoming a habit? ...What flannel.

ABF's vitriol is like a sunburn, it stings quite bad for a while but after a time one builds up a resistance and after that it only makes you look good. :)


Whataboutyeeeee ABF, hope life and the God you deny is treating you well!!!


Beece

Couldn't be better Beece, thanks. And your good self? Funny thing is I haven't been being vitriolic. Well, apart from at the start when I happened to look in on a whole lot of nasty boloney about gay people over some issue I've forgotten. We've just got a precious one here. Thinks I hate the world. Says I'm worse than a rapist. There's vitriol for you. Quite screwed up really. You'd think that as a gay man himself, he'd take one look at what's happening to kindred souls in places like Uganda, mostly at the instigation of oh so pious Christians, and shut up. But no, being a believer himself, he's in the impossibly difficult position of being not only extremely precious but also sets out to take offence where none is given or intended. And he thinks an alternative position strongly and decisively put in a debate is not "nice" (how I loathe that word). One wonders what sort of shape a debate would be in if it were carried out by his rules.

Anyway, bless you Beece. Nice to see you around.

Beece -

AF's vitriol is the result of the fact that he knows he's wrong. If he had a decent argument he would present it. The fact that he resorts to attacking the person tells us all we need to know about the state of his 'evidence pantry': the phrase 'Old Mother Hubbard' springs to mind!

The same, of course, goes for certain other people who frequent this blog.

LSV, I've known ABF for quite a while now, he's not a bad sort.

See, life is sometimes like the landscape, the deeper you dig the more layers you discover. ABF's surface may be as abrasive as get out, but he's a big softie underneath.

He enjoys playing the stereotypes, s'pose we all do a bit. If people come on with with attitude based comments and forget the on the ground humanity involved ABF will have his axe out in a shot, he's a force of nature.

Aint that right ABF'y? lol


See, I'm married so I understand that getting a slap in the mouth is sometimes a cry for help (or at least a conversation starter) lol

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi ABF.

Good to speak to you too, our aul mate NEW gimme a shout re. this blog. I'm doing aright, you still enjoying the cooking? Am I right in remembering you mentioned taking the dog long walks up the hills? explains the fitness anyway.

Hey, BTW be nice to this new lot would yee lol


Beece

Ryan

These personal attacks on About Face should end. To this fair-minded reader About Face's point about projection rings true.

Yes both dog and self are in fine shape, but I've moved out of Belfast and commute now so no longer Cavehill. I'm up north now and there's a beautiful forest ten minutes from the house so we go there most days. And yes, still cooking away. I've become quite good at it :)

Oh Logica. I take it your "evidence pantry" is stocked by Acme?

17. To warp a mind into such a state of self-hatred that it rejects and resents any expression of self-love or righteous anger outside of the bounds it's familiar with

well Newlach, he's latched onto me. Everytime I write a post he's on top of me. He was quite willing to engage me William & Kate thread to goad a response, then can never take the pressure.

"With those words, Paul Vitello of The New York Times introduces the contribution of the woman widely regarded as America's premier Catholic theologian, Sister Elizabeth Johnson. "
I think there are quite a few other American Catholics besides the U.S. bishops that might have issues with this title bestowed on Sister Elizabeth.

What do you MEAN I latched onto you? I spent the first good chunk of time on here pointedly ignoring you and you followed me around so much I had to point that out to you. And you still kept on. And you continue to keep on (although I confess I fancied a barmy and deliberately porvoked you yesterday). At one point, while you were still being ignored, you interrupted an exchange that didn't involve you to say my interests were narrow and accuse me of some slight. When I clicked your name, the majority of your top ten posts were swipes at me - with no response.

And today, clicking on your name reveals the same result - all of your posts, barring one hand-wringy contribution on oceans - are you spitting bile at me.

Really dear boy!

You're own set of beliefs ARE your religion to you AboutFace. Shame you don't even realise it. You're as much a religionist as the best of them :)

Well Id be happier if you did ignore me.You've latched onto me loads of times, then when you haven't been able to take the pressure you've manipulated it by saying that .Anyway Im happy to ignore you,if you ignore me. Don't think you have the self-restraint but would be interesting to see

Newlach re my post 36, Id like that post & this to be my last word on the subject, Click on About Face's handle and read his threads. I don't have an issue with his belief structure at all- I agree with many aspects , but I don't like his approach. He's targeted people, LSV, me, Parrhasios to make it difficult to function on the blog. He creates a dynamic that makes certain subjects harder to broach and gentler posters like Eunice from posting. Although I know she's a tough cookie I don't think she'd want to subject herself to the changed dynamic in the blog. There was nothing in AboutFace's approach of fitting in,he decided he was going to be a regular, handed people he sparked off an Ultimatum and that was it

I'd be glad if you could point me to the "pressure" you ever put me under. Back of an envelope I'd say you've directed about seven or eight times as many posts at me as I have you.

Ryan, I'm manipulating nothing, and your hysterics are beginning to be noticed by other posters. And this all seems very important to you.

Please spare me the "you're a religionist too" line. I'd have thought that was beneath even you, assuming you know what you're talking about.

I had a few weeks of Ryan harping before AB came along. I'm thankful for small mercies.

It's almost as bizarre as it is pathetic. The religion bit is like some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, "the these-people-are-my-friends, this-is-my-world!" stuff about this blog is excruciating.

Bring back Eunice. If only so she can tell him I didn't shatter her world. God knows I'd be extremely surprised if Eunice ever gave me a second thought. She's probably off trecking in the Himalayas or getting down in Goa or something.

I find it hard to imagine Eunice (be like a reed in the breeze) sitting with her knees hunched up to her chin in some corner, mascara running down her cheeks, hair tousled, going: "He ruined it. Shhhh-ohh! He RU-INNNNnnnnnned it! Grrrrr!"

Nope. Eunice is almost certainly at one with the universe somewhere. Perhaps she's even doing it tending her own garden. There's lots to be done this time of year...

Incidentally Andrew. What did you get stalked for? Being Christian?

The mind boggles.

AB

I think for being too much of a Christian. Ideally what you need to be is tepid.

If you're not tepid, so help you god, you'll hear about it. Ultimately he would like us all to play 'ring a ring o' roses'. I've always preferred 'Pop goes the weasel';

Every night when I get home
The monkey's on the table,
Take a stick and knock it off,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Andrew, you're my favourite fundy yet. Ever actually. Do you protest at Gay Snide? If there were more like you I might join you. Would you mind if I wore bottomless chaps when I turn my back? And can I hold up my St Paul tract?

What I don't quite understand, is that Christians claim to believe in Monotheism, yet, abrogate it with their theory of the Trinity. I mean, just ask yourself. If Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time, who existed first, the Farther or the Son? Furthermore, if God the father decides to do something that God the Son does not, what is the likely out come? Can someone please explain.

In the response from the theologians, the catholic bishops are accused of misinterpreting a book.

Good luck with that, the catholic bishops are not known for their willingness to enter debate on their interpretations of books.

AB

No, I've never been. Still working through what I think about political theology.

You can wear bottomless chaps as long as you're not wearing bottomless jeans. By all means hold up your Paul tract, as he says in the same epistle;

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Ricco powers (@ 43) -

"If Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time, who existed first, the Farther or the Son?"

Maybe there wasn't any 'first' about it, because God is above time. OK, that may seem like a crazy idea, but it must be true that 'time' cannot be an absolute. This is true even for the atheist. If time actually exists as a reality (rather than merely a subjective construct) - in other words, there is a sequence of cause and effect that has to operate in an ordered manner - then how can we conceive of time not having a beginning? And if there was a beginning to time, then what came before? In fact there would not have been such a thing as a 'before'. So the first cause of our worldview - be it God or the great question mark of the atheists - cannot be subject to time.

Therefore the Christian view of the eternity of God is, at least, no more illogical than the atheistic contortions concerning 'first cause'.

"...if God the father decides to do something that God the Son does not, what is the likely out come?"

That's an entirely academic question. What if the will of the Father and the will of the Son are one? As Jesus said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". If there was a conflict within God, then God would not exist. Such a conflict implies the existence of some sort of rebellion, and it is difficult to comprehend why and how the perfect love of God would contain within itself rebellion, which is based on hatred.

The nature of God as described by the Bible - "God is love" - explains why God is not merely 'one' person, but a community of three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How can God be a God of love unless there is a relationship within the Godhead? The only way that God could be love in the absence of such a relationship, would be in terms of 'self-love', which, of course, is not 'love'.

Man has been made in the image of God and therefore has been created as a social being, since God is a relationship of persons. (By the way, this is a far more 'humanistic' view than the absurd theory of atheism, in which man is just an animal - in fact, no more than a meaningless combination of molecules. Christianity exalts humanity far more than atheism ever could. Which is rather ironic, don't you think, given the contemporary definition of 'humanism'?)

"...the atheistic contortions concerning 'first cause'." Guffawww! Guffaw guffaw. Thassa cracker. It's the way you tell them.

"What if the will of the Father and the will of the Son are one? As Jesus said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". If there was a conflict within God, then God would not exist. Such a conflict implies the existence of some sort of rebellion, and it is difficult to comprehend why and how the perfect love of God would contain within itself rebellion, which is based on hatred."

I'm interested to know then, why the contemporary Christian obsession with the nuclear family? Jesus is quite explicit about how he doesn't care if by following him families are struck asunder. Luke 12:53: "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Rebellion is "based on hatred"? Jesus was nothing if not a rebel. Twonk.

Making a leap off the dogcart and racing back to the topic at hand:

In my opinion the anti-feminist view of Christianity is a bit redundant when you look at history and the locations to where Christianity has spread, and see the way that women are valued and esteemed in those societies. Then compare it to where other faiths are more prominent, likes of Saudi Arabia, and how women are valued and esteemed there.

The Bible commands that men honour and love their wives, that women share in being made in God's image (Gen 1v27) and the blessing that came from God (Gen 5v2). Galatians 3v28 clearly states that they are of equal status in the church:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave* nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Onto your point about the nuclear family, I think you are mixing up statement with imperative ABF. One is simply stating a consequential fact, the other is giving a direct endorsement or command. Jesus, in Luke 12v53 is simply stating the consequence of believing in Christ is that it will bring division among households, which it did and still does today. That is different from saying that Jesus is endorsing it. Taking it into another context, my old technology teacher in school made a point of explaining to us the dangers of using some of the machinery available in the workshop. By doing this he wasn't endorsing the loss of digits, eyeballs or mangling of limbs, he was merely stating consequential facts.

In the same way, Jesus Christ is not endorsing hatred between the nuclear family, but he is making a strong statement about the consequences that believers in Christ face.

Bout ye Beece?

(@ 46)

In response to this I have to reply as follows. When a christian theologian mentions the three in one, really what they are discussing is the Hypostases: existence, life and knowledge. Hence, the father is knowledge, the word (also called the son); and life, the holy spirit. The word (logos) does not mean speech in this instance because in their doctrine speech is created.

Thus hypostases are, according to them, substance pure and simple without anything added. Substance is one and the hypostases are three. The hypostases, in their view are not existent beings in and of themselves, but rather they are possessions of substance that conform to modal states. The modal state is, for example, spatial extension in the case of substance; it is a mode that is additional to the substance's existence. The modal state is characterized therefore, neither by the non-existence nor by existence but instead an attribute of existence. The hypostases in Christian doctrine are conditions of the substance to which these modal states apply.

So the theologians claim is this, that the word is one with the Messiah and is clothed in his humanity. Some also insist that it means that the word resides in the physical body of the Messiah in the same way as an accident resides in its substrate.
So how can they respond to this question, What keeps you from claiming that the hypostases are four instead of three if we include power. I mean, there is no better reason to exclude power from the list of hypostases than knowledge. likewise, if it is permitted to argue that existence is a hypostases, what prevents considering perpetuity a hypostases?

At this point a question arises, if it is insisted by the theologians that the word becomes incarnate in the Messiah and they explain it as an indwelling, one must respond to them as follows. Is the knowledge which is called the word separable from substance or not? If the answer is yes they are too obliged to admit that substance cannot have a hypostases of knowledge, since knowledge is now merged with the Messiah.
In contrast, if they insist that the hypostases of knowledge is inseparable from substance, it would be impossible for it to dwell in the physical body of Jesus due to its particularization in the first substance. It is impossible for and accident to become incarnate in a certain body while that accident adheres to another body. If it were possible that the word unites with the Messiah, it is also allowed that substance unites with the humanity.

Furthermore, since the word unites with the Messiah, why does it not unite with the holy spirit, which is the hypostases of life? One if the characteristics is that it is inseparable from life, which in my opinion demonstrates the deep confusion which now exists amongst many christians.

Consider this, how can one deny the claim of someone who maintains that the word was united with Moses, for that reason he could change the Rod into a veritable serpent, split the sea in two and other miraculous things?

Also, if each hypostases in their view, does not have the attribute of existence in and of it's self, how can what does not bear the attribute of existence have the attribute of divinity?

What does God's Word say? In Genesis 1 and 2 it says the following (note Adam's joyous affection towards his wife):

'Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness... So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.'

'And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”... But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place... Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”'

The Holy Spirit speaking by the Apostle Paul said the following in 1 Cor. 11:

'But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God... For a man... is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.'

All human beings are made in the image of God, although now deeply marred by sin and the Fall. Nevertheless, man is made in the image of God in a more direct sense than woman. Therefore God is spoken of using masculine words in the Bible by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostles and Prophets. Nevertheless, this is not to say that God is a man, rather than a woman. He is not. But He is certainly not a she, although she is made in His image and has equal dignity with the man because of this.

Does Christianity raise man up, so that he may enslave and abuse woman? Certainly not! See Eph. 5 for example, where man is to sacrifice himself for his wife out a deep love for her who is metaphysically part of him:

'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and **gave Himself for her... So husbands ought to love their own wives** as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

Ahh the trinity, ever since Nicaea a meal ticket for cod theologians everywhere.

and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.'

Like the Medieval Scholastics, they waste their time on questions that are irrelevant, or in moulding the Word of God to fit their own fashionable man-made philosophy and in twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction, including the destruction of society.

"...our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (1 Pet. 3:15,16)

'Where there is no counsel, the people fall... Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people... He who says to the wicked, “You are righteous,” Him the people will curse; nations will abhor him... When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan... Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law.' (Proverbs)

They may receive praise from those who give them glory (the gods they worship), but God will give them condemnation and punishment for their proud rebellion by which they love the praise of men rather than love Christ:

"He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him." (John 7:18)

"I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honour from one another, and do not seek the honour that comes from the only God?" (John 5:43,44)

Why don't feminist and other liberal theologians just give up the pretence of being Christian, and just admit who they really are: humanist philosophers. Like all atheists (theoretical or practical) they arrogantly sit in judgement upon God and His truth, but unless they repent, He will sit in judgement on them.

'But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”' (Rom. 9:20)

'[C]ontend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ… But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe… Likewise also these dreamers… speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah… They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgement on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”… These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage.' (Jude)

To "Ricco Powers": Your definition of Christianity is not orthodox, but seems to be a form of the ancient heresy Modalism.

AboutFace (@ 47) -

"Guffawww! Guffaw guffaw. Thassa cracker."

A guffaw from you means only one thing:

I've made a good point.

So I am very grateful to you for your response. Thank you, my friend, for your kindness.

And yes, rebellion is based on hatred: hatred for the thing you are rebelling against. I would have thought that even you would have the basic level of intelligence to work that one out!

Sheesh! You must be tired after a long week in front of a hot stove, or whatever it is you do.

Oh, and one other thing - concerning 'first cause': I suppose it must be hard for the atheists to talk about 'first cause' since (thanks to Prof. Hawking) it consists of a great fat dollop of 'nothingness'. Something coming from nothing. Yep. That's really bright. Perhaps you ought to try this ingredient called 'nothing' in your culinary concoctions. It might spice up your carp.

Nothingness through meaninglessness and onto oblivion. That's atheism for you. A truly fascinating bit of narrative. It's amazing what the human mind can conjure up - it really is!

@LSV

My irony meter just exploded.

Hang on, hang on. Watch. Pfft. No seriously, hold onto your sides, I'm gonna do it again: ""...the atheistic contortions concerning 'first cause'." Guffawww!

Aggghhhh gufffawwwww!

Brilliant. Straight from the Acme pantry.

AboutFace -

Aggghhhh gufffawwwww!

Is that the best you can do?

Or is this a case of evolution in reverse, and we're back to simian style grunts?

I know that the philosophy of naturalism can't account for reason, but really, AboutFace, did you really have to take it all that seriously?

Logica, I simply think you do Thomas Aquinas a great disservice in calling his contortions concerning the First Cause "atheistic". Surely not. We're on ground I'm more familiar with here, not that it makes any difference.

And look #48, there's Ryani back with another pretty cloudy headed analogy. That doesn't work.

More context:

"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened [4] till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Your analogy would be correct if you had your technology teacher pointing to the lathe and saying: "If you do what I say, you can expect to lose limbs. And if you don't do what I say... [purses his lips and sucks in a deep breath] much, much worse. Mwah-hah-hah-haaahhhh!!!"

That's what the capenter's son said anyway.

Contortions contortions.

"Logica". If you were worthy of the name your argument would stop here: The belief in God or in life after death only avoids the fate of hallucination because the thing believed in is in the transcendental realm, immune to empirical evidence and counter-evidence. For that reason, you can believe what you like about the transcendental realm with impunity. All it contradicts is your intellectual honesty.

And you revel in that impunity and make free use of that dishonesty.

AboutFace -

"you can believe what you like about the transcendental realm with impunity. All it contradicts is your intellectual honesty.

And you revel in that impunity and make free use of that dishonesty."

The ultimate admission of defeat: accusing your opponent of dishonesty, while not being able to defend the legitimacy of that accusation. Peter Klaver's another one who is quite notorious at that little game. It's all very revealing to me, actually.

Which is all rather ironic, given that you materialistic types cannot account for any kind of morality within your philosophy! So what exactly does the word 'dishonest' mean, materialistically speaking?!

Do keep up, AF. You're seriously lagging behind in the philosophy department.

I must admit that I can't quite manage the mental acrobatics that are required to believe that intricate and complex systems must always be the result of mindless and unguided processes. Clearly you seem to think that 'honesty' demands that I believe that. What a truly fascinating understanding of the concept of 'honesty' you seem to have. Your name wouldn't happen to be the Mad Hatter, would it?

Thanks jean c
All human beings are made in the image of God, although now deeply marred by sin and the Fall
just about sums christianists up
for gods sake get off your knees!

That was a simple statement of fact, and you give the lie to your own claims about being familiar with any kind of philosophy, at all, by attempting to argue against it. Is that invisible teapot still in orbit?

AboutFace (@ 61) -

"That was a simple statement of fact, and you give the lie to your own claims about being familiar with any kind of philosophy, at all, by attempting to argue against it. Is that invisible teapot still in orbit?"

??

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Jean Cauvin,

Interesting stuff, I have to say Lord of the Rings is a more interesting read but I admit has no more proof than your little ditty. When you say

"What does God's Word say?"

You really ought to preface it with if he exists.

You see Logica? I'm not allowed to express that I hold you in utter contempt. Which seems schoolyard. Are we not grown-ups here? Does some kindly moderator think this person can't take it or isn't deserving of it? Would the compassionate moderator, so worried that I might offend our good "Logica" tell me what part of any of his postings is deserving of the respect of any thinking person? Or are you up late tonight William?

I'll put it to you again "Logica". Tell me which bit of Aquinas you find "atheistic".

And what was so different about that than the one removed an hour ago?! Have you got Andy Pandy doing cameo moderating on this blog or what? Pfft!

We are careful to say "may have led to women's diminished roles in Western religious traditions, especially the Roman Catholic Church." As I understand it- this undermined role may have happened and may still do so yet it also highlights the Catholic Church as a prime suspect involved. Diminished is a very dangerous word. I feel the women in the catholic church are likely pivotable and crutial to its actual survival very far from Diminished. What strikes me is how typical these phrases are to these blogs in regular conversation. However, no matter,no worry , what I would really like to highlight is if we have time to concern ourselves about the insignificant debatable understandings of these various aspects concerning rules or religious beliefs why are we not tacking or concentrating on the real tricky and difficult religious issues. Such as various church involvement/action concerning extreme fundamental islamic ungovered african states such as Somalia for example. Are they are too difficult programs to discuss or are they not welcome as they are far from us! William maybe you can challange this issue please sometime.

And you didn't get the teapot reference? That's what the "??" was for? Yes I think so. Does anyone smell a rat about this guy's philosophical pretentions?

Wait! Guys! You mean to tell me that rat smell every time I come on this blog was him all along?! Surely not!

In the one removed I said that "??" of yours was the most honest I've ever seen you.

Now, will nursey let that through? Compared with the odium that comes this direction I'd say it's distinctly mild. Almost subtle. Me being worse than a rapist and all (as has been claimed, and got through).

AboutFace -

You need to calm down, my friend.

I'm still mulling over the 'dishonesty' accusation. I'm at a loss to understand quite how you managed to work out that I found any part of Aquinas' arguments atheistic. Do, pray, enlighten me, good sir. Or was your imagination working overtime when you wrote that? My comment concerned the atheistic concept of 'first cause' - i.e. the great dollop of nothingness out of which everything came (apparently!). Is it my refusal to believe that something can come from nothing that warrants the accusation of 'dishonesty'?

Or perhaps my 'dishonesty' is to do with the fact that I am consciously, willingly, knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, calculatedly, designedly - and even perhaps maliciously - ignoring something that is called 'evidence'! Oh yes! Could it be that I am faced with a body of overwhelming evidence that the philosophy of materialism is 'true'? Is it that it is all sooooo obvious that complexity derives from mindlessness and disorder and I am just putting my hands over my eyes and ears and going 'la la la la la'?

Well, if this is the case, then could I just make a tiny, little, mild, innocent, trembling request? Please be so good as to apprise me of this 'evidence'. Because poor li'l me has never actually seen any evidence that information rich complex living systems must arise - or have definitely arisen - without the need for intelligence. If I am being so 'dishonest' as to ignore all this irrefutable and incontrovertible evidence, then I don't think it really is too much to ask you to present me with this evidence. Eh? What about it, chum?

AboutFace -

Following on from my previous post (as this is another thread that can't cope with long posts)...

Of course, I have seen plenty of circular arguments, wild speculation and special pleading. But no actual evidence. So I'm afraid I'm at a loss to know what it is I am being 'dishonest' about!

As for circular arguments, I hope the moderators will indulge me as I quote a few lines of a 19th century novel now in the public domain - a book full of insights into the psychology of a certain type of debater.

The poor knave was on trial, and evidence (if I can call it that) was being collected to convict him of a heinous crime of theft. The White Rabbit jumped up and presented some evidence to the King - a piece of paper with some verses written on it.

"Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?" asked another of the jurymen.

"No, they're not," said the White Rabbit, "and that's the queerest thing about it." (The jury all looked puzzled.)

"He must have imitated somebody else's hand," said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

"Please your Majesty," said the Knave, "I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end."

"If you didn't sign it," said the King, "that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man."

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

"This proves his guilt," said the Queen.

(from 'Alice in Wonderland', of course)

Meditate on this example of a circular argument. The king had a priori decided that the knave was guilty, and thus interpreted the evidence accordingly, even though there was nothing in the evidence that implicated the defendant. "He must be guilty!" was the verdict, and the fact that the handwriting was wrong and there was no signature made not the slightest difference. This lack of evidence was then taken as evidence that the knave was trying to be deceitful!!

You have charged me with 'dishonesty' on exactly the same basis as the king charged the knave.

A wonderful study in human psychology (and desperation).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This is ludicrous. Can you call a spade a spade? Is the moderation of this thing designed to put people off? Do you really think "Logica" is that fragile? Forget it.

AboutFace -

Can you spot the odd one out? :

1. A spade equals a spade.
2. A sledgehammer equals a sledgehammer.
3. An insult equals evidence.
4. A plate of carp and chips equals a plate of carp and chips.

Can you work out which one of the above four isn't quite right? Take your time now...

Perhaps the mods just want to help you solve this little puzzle. You should be grateful to them.

Ah, LSV, still equating without meaning and purpose to meaningless and pointlessness.

I'm sure you have a fine, fine, scarecrow factory with all the straw men you create to pull down. Just because purpose is subjective and meaning is what you make of it yourself doesn't make it irrelevant.

Briefly - I'm not about to debate science with you because I don't know science. And neither do you, which above I quite fairly said is one of the reasons I hold you in very low esteem. There's a plain example of your intellectual dishonesty - slightly different in flavour to just plain lying - and more serious as far as I'm concerned.

You talked about "atheistic contortions concerning First Cause". I wasn't aware of any such contortions by "atheists". The God of theistic contortions about First Cause though is Thomas Aquinas, as you know. So I wondered what you're on about. And you seem to have broken Groke's "irony meter" with that classic.

In any case, Aquinas's First Cause *argument* is a basically a cosmogony, whereas the Big Bang *theory* is science. We understand there's quite a difference don't we. Cosmological arguments are part of philosophy long since dispensed with. Not science. It doesn't take a genius to see the Big Bang is not a reductio ad absurdum.

Further, Philosopher, you really didn't get the teapot reference did you, or you'd have been parading it around all over the place. Any undergrad would have got that in an instant, particularly given what we're talking about here. But this isn't even sophomoric. Sophomoronic perhaps.

And the Six-Day-Creationist gives me a quote from Alice in Wonderland with a simple series of non sequiturs (common in surrealist literature), ostensibly as an example of a circular argument. For my education, see. Thanks for that.

AboutFace -

The Russell's Teapot fallacy has been done to death on this blog (although not actually in terms of that particular analogy), and perhaps you were not contributing here at that time. This method of argument by caricature is a complete nonsense, as I have proven in the second half of this post here.

My ?? in #62 concerned the first sentence I quoted from your previous post. The 'teapot in orbit' comment I ignored, as just another pointless bit of village atheist nonsense not worth responding to.

If you really want to make a big thing about Russell's 'burden of proof' non sequitur, then I will ask you for the empirical evidence that proves that the 'burden of proof' ought to fall in one way rather than the other (and if you try to argue that the burden of proof 'ought to' be on theists, then I wonder how this fits into your understanding of the 'is-ought' controversy. Where would this 'ought' come from? And, in fact, please define what you mean by 'proof'.)

Isn't google a great thing. You couldn't prove bread.

AF -

Oh, you're a mind reader as well, by claiming you know what I know and don't know! I didn't think you believed in the supernatural!

Well I never!

Perhaps you'll be promoted to the Heliopolitan league, where it is claimed that theists know that they are really atheists, and just don't want to admit it!

It's impossible for me to prove to you that I had actually heard of Russell's Teapot. So I am not going to try (especially considering that the point is irrelevant). Therefore do carry on believing what you want to believe, and I hope it makes you very happy (/sarc.). If you feel like addressing the arguments some day, then you know where I am.

Ah, LSV is on about empirical evidence and philosophical considerations again. If I can just repeat a question here I've asked a few times before:

LSV, you've presented empirical evidence a number of times before in support of goddunnit or as criticism against evolution or abiogenesis. You never worried about the philosophical presuppositions then. Never a word against methodological naturalism etc. when you think you have some empirical evidence to support the case for god or undo some field of science that squeezes out god. Only when I show your empirical evidence to be badly flawed once more do you shift the goal posts and start applying the double standards. When you've been forced into a corner where you should admit a godless world appears to be the likely scenario, then do you suddenly switch to the old pseudo-philosophical whines to exclude empirical evidence.

You complain about some posters charging you with dishonesty. But the repeated, willful inconsistency and double standards in your posts do provide them all the ammo they need to do that.

PK -

Show me ONE post that I have written that argues that we should 'exclude empirical evidence'.

In fact, far from it, I have argued that we should look at empirical evidence, which provides us with evidence of design. See this post, paragraph five beginning "Helio has made the point..."

Do you agree that it is dishonest to twist someone's words?

By the way... please show me the empirical evidence that "squeezes out God" and that therefore proves that the complex systems of life must result from mindless processes.

No philosophical arguments. And no speculation. Just empirical evidence.

I'll be waiting.

Failure to provide this evidence will settle - once and for all - the question of who is being dishonest in debate.

LSV,

"Show me ONE post that I have written that argues that we should 'exclude empirical evidence'."

It's not what you've written when empirical evidence came up, it's what you didn't write.

Obviously you want to ignore empirical evidence into oblivion if it goes against there being a god. You pretend it isn't there. I've reminded you tons of times about empirical evidence you brought up because you thought it helped 'goddunnit'. For example self-replicating systems. You bring up the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. I show an example that destroys that notion. You make one flawed attempt to argue against it, then ignore it, ignore it, ignore it, and then ignore it some more every time I stick it to you. Oh how you wish it wasn't there. Oh how you wish it could be excluded from any further consideration. How you would like it not to be mentioned any further.

"In fact, far from it, I have argued that we should look at empirical evidence, ......"

If it doesn't fit your goddunnit then you ignore it, ignore it, ignore it, ignore it. Oh how you wish it wasn't there. Oh how you wish it could be excluded from any further consideration. How you would like it not to be mentioned any further.

"Do you agree that it is dishonest to twist someone's words?"

Certainly, it is your twisting (and ignoring, and straw men, and diversions, etc) why a number of posters here think of you as they do.

PK -

"Certainly, it is your twisting (and ignoring, and straw men, and diversions, etc) why a number of posters here think of you as they do."

Which posters? Are you talking about AboutFace? Certain other atheists?

Well, we all know why they think of me as they do. It's pretty obvious. It's because they're atheists, and they seem not to be able to endure the idea of having to coexist in a world in which there are people who don't agree with their particular philosophy. And to think that they claim to be 'free thinkers'. What a joke.

What would actually bother me is if they didn't have a low view of me, considering the views they hold. I am not on this blog to be popular. If you think that is what this is about, then you are really quite deluded.

to be continued...

PK - continued...

"For example self-replicating systems. You bring up the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. I show an example that destroys that notion."

That is your opinion. I fail to see how your argument proves anything about the existence of God. In fact, it doesn't even count as evidence as to what actually did take place in the past. It is merely speculation as to what 'could have conceivably happened' if the philosophy of materialism were true. In other words, it's an interpretation of the evidence based on a philosophical presupposition. You fail singularly to explain how these systems can be protected from adverse reactions in the putative pre-biotic soup. Your whole thesis is based on the assumption that once some useful structure has been formed by sheer fluke, then the universe 'knows' to preserve and protect it so that it cannot be destroyed. It's a kind of biological equivalent of Dawkins' erroneous weasel programme.

Of course, you haven't satisfactorily answered the questions about information that I have raised. I have shown that the crystal analogy is a total non sequitur since it involves algorithmically compressible information, unlike that of DNA and RNA.

Furthermore, I linked to an article about an abiogenesis experiment and made the point that it simulates not only the supposed conditions of the early earth, but it also simulates intelligence. These kinds of experiments prove ID, unless, of course the scientists involved would like to withdraw their involvement. They rig up the experiment and guide it to a particular result. That is the function of intelligence. So how does that prove the great 'mindlessness' theory?

Carry on accusing me of being dishonest, if that makes you feel better. I will continue to challenge the illogical philosophy of materialism whether you like it or not. If you want to carry distorting my arguments, then I am sure more intelligent people can work out what is really going on here.

1) The weasel program is a limited example of a specific criteria, even Dawkins wouldn't use it to show evolution. Your continued bringing up of that, even though this has been pointed out to you many, many times is, if not dishonest, flawed.

2) Either emperical evidence is valid, or it isn't. Unlike the pseudoscience that cdesign proponentists use, empirical evidence can be revalided as many times as you want. Your demands for repeatable experiments for theories such as the big bang seems to betray your opinion that mathematical and physical models don't count as 'real' science.

3) Extrapolation and inference are certainly valid methods to use, however, where there is a multitude of possible outcomes from the evidence used, then it's almost next to useless; this is type of inference that comes from the ID camp. The inference used in hard sciences is formed from many extrapolations leading to the same outcome.

I've stayed out of this debate as I'm tired of corrupting Will's excellent blog postings with YACE debate, but LSV is raising the same points, time and time again and his only answer to most of the hard facts lined against him is "I don't believe x means y."

I'm sorry LSV, but your incredulity means diddly squat. If you truely want to challenge the science and the theories, you need to learn a lot more than just throwing out metaphysical concepts and ignoring the science you seek to replace.

My goodness. All I'm getting from this debate is that a good number of both the religionists and anti-religionists are quite horrible, snarky people, so neither of their belief/unbelief system seems to be working for them. I've no axe to grind here, but there's a fair bit of immaturity expressed above from both sides of a completely tangential argument!

Back on topic though, this is disappointing but not particularly surprising by the US Bishops. No doubt there'll be a book-burning soon.... [sigh]

I quite liked Beece's comment (#1) - I hadn't thought that assigning any gender to God is trying to create God in our image, but that does make sense and is a fine challenge to those religionists *apparently* obsessed by gender, genitalia and whose bits go where! :o) In too many churches the males get to be the priests, whilst the females get to do the cleaning!

Natman / PK et al...

What I would really love to know is this:

Where is the empirical evidence that proves to us that life was not designed? All science can do is study living systems (and other aspects of nature), and tell us what they are and how they work. So what? In the absence of direct observational evidence (i.e. in the distant past), all the theories about the origin of life can only ever be pure speculation based on certain philosophical presuppositions.

Where in the actual observed structure of living systems is there irrefutable evidence that life was not designed by an intelligent creator (i.e. it definitely is the result of mindless and unguided processes)? Please let me know.

If you cannot answer this question (remember without resorting to any kind of philosophical or epistemological presupposition by which you attempt to interpret empirical data), then why all the constant opposition to what you term 'religion'?

Now, I am aware that you may then ask the question as to where the evidence is that life was designed. Fair enough. I think the evidence for that is overabundant, but any refusal to accept that evidence only leads us to a position of agnosticism. The empirical evidence of life tells us what is happening now. All theories about origins are merely speculative, and therefore the debate has to be philosophical and not scientific.

So if we accept that science can only lead us to a position of agnosticism, then I find it rather curious that you atheists attempt to appeal to science to condemn 'religion'. It really is all rather odd.

You may, of course, criticise religious views for non-scientific reasons - i.e. philosophical reasons. If that is the case, then we can talk about those issues - as, in fact, we have been. But then I would wonder why someone like Peter Klaver is so allergic to philosophy!

I myself just cannot see how science proves atheism to be true. There is absolutely nothing about highly complex systems that tells me that intelligence must not have been involved. Such reasoning is frankly "Emperor's new clothes" logic.

LSV,

""For example self-replicating systems. You bring up the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. I show an example that destroys that notion."

That is your opinion. I fail to see how your argument proves anything about the existence of God."

The paper I brought up earlier was not in the context of presenting positive evidence for abiogenesis (I did that in other posts, but you ignored most of the evidence presented there) but rather to refute your irreducible complexity argument about self-replicating biological systems. And that it does beautifully. Disprove by counter example, very simple. Present one self-replicating molecule that assembles copies of itself from its parts in isolation and voila, your irreducible complexity claim is dead.

Perhaps you could refrain from misrepresenting my words as if I had presented that paper as evidence against god. I didn't, I presented it to finish off you irreducible complexity argument.

"Of course, you haven't satisfactorily answered the questions about information that I have raised."

Information (and the lack of even a definition of your much vaunted specified complexity in information) is a bit of a tangent from what we were discussing in this thread.

"Furthermore, I linked to an article about an abiogenesis experiment and made the point that.........(snip)........ So how does that prove the great 'mindlessness' theory?"

You tell me, it's a paper that you put up, I never claimed it in support of anything. Must I make up your arguments for you now?

"My goodness. All I'm getting from this debate is that a good number of both the religionists and anti-religionists are quite horrible, snarky people, so neither of their belief/unbelief system seems to be working for them. I've no axe to grind here, but there's a fair bit of immaturity expressed above from both sides of a completely tangential argument!"

Quite right Bitseach

The mutual self importance society seems to have hijacked this thread........again!

It's always lovely to read the comments on Will and Teatament. In fact, it's possible not to read them and still to know what's being said, because it's always the same people saying the same things in the same patronising manner (sigh). It tend to put me off posting, as I imagine it tends to put others off too.

Hi. I didn't bother reading all the comments but listened to the podcast. Sr. Elizabeth is the premier Catholic theologian in the US? Says who? Former president of the CTS? My opinion, as valid as Terrence T's, says she is not. To use an overused word, she views are just not relevant.

Overused word? "She"? Are you a priest? Tsk.

@89:Not sure about her views being "relevant", but otherwise,my thoughts, too.
Sister Elizabeth's texts may have been used in in various institutions, but not in orthodox Catholic universities that I'm familiar with.
I think whatever's going on in modern society has relevance of some sort.It's a different though, in matters of faith & doctrine. Different set of rules.And it's a free country.We can accept one religion's rules, or not.And we can write books proclaiming whatever we wish.Just don't always expect a green light from the U.S.Bishops.

PS: Here's some more thoughts on the subject of Sr. Elizabeth & the U.S. Bishops: (hope the link works.)
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=790

"About Face" thanks for the heads up on my poor English in #89. The "she" you pointed out should be "her". The overused word is relevant.

LSV, RE: "Of course, you haven't satisfactorily answered the questions about information that I have raised. I have shown that the crystal analogy is a total non sequitur since it involves algorithmically compressible information, unlike that of DNA and RNA."

I went back to have a read at your response to my earlier thoughts on the notion of information. It's not been easy to interpret that response. I suspect it's because you're still bridging the gap between semantic and syntactic information with more ease than we have the warrant to do so, but I could be wrong on this front.

I wonder whether taking biology and physics out of the picture would make this point a little clearer. Your question would have a neat counterpart as "can the information content (of a particular packet of data interpreted in an A-structure) be nothing more than an emergent property (of an axiomatic B-system)", with the A-structure packet being a particular biological replicator and the B-system being physics as explained in terms of deterministic laws.

To answer in the negative to this is just to make the following (probably equivalent) claims: system B does not have the expressive capacity to account for all structures A, or system B does not have the generative capacity to create A.

What you want to do now is to say "Okay, so in order to show that system A is stronger than (or at least at variance with) system B, and hence irreducible to it, we demonstrate that A-structures do not behave in accordance with the rules of B-structures. That is, systems A and B are not isomorphic."

That's strategically apt, and looking at the mathematical properties of Systems A and B is the right way to do that. But here's the crux - your solution requires that you look at the identity conditions of objects in system A, and deduce from the fact that B gives no account of these conditions that the two systems are not in sync. That's what you're relying on with this notion of Algorithmically Incompressible Semantic Information in your argument. I appreciate that you'd want to expand algorithmic incompressibility to represent the broader mathematical idea of incompressibility in any possible axiomatic system, but when you qualify this by relativising it to Semantics, you're making the critical jump towards groundedness in particular systems.

You're saying that the physical world can show no kind of selection mechanism because it's purely deterministic and physical (or that system B is an axiomatic system), while there is a restriction on the genetic world that there is a band-pass filtering on DNA codes in order for replication to successfully occur (or that there is a more restricted set of consequences in system A, such that we need more powerful axioms), and that this explanation hinges on a notion of selection.

But the lack of A-restrictions on the B-system does not mean that B cannot account for those A-restrictions being what they are. That only works when the A-restrictions are Structural or mathematical; for example, a tenseless language may struggle to interpret a future conditional, but you do not need to understand the spells of a fantasy world to know how to write a script where a character casts one. There is still the possibility that physical explanations can simply subsume the notion of Selection as either specific cases of more general phenomena (perhaps as chemical/physical reaction) or relegate it to a useful fiction (in the light of some other explanation) that as a cognitive tool can be reliable without being entirely correct.

So you're grasping at something interesting, but again, the semantic/syntactic distinction in information is one to be careful with. If you had a difference in syntactic expressibility that split evolutionary information from physical, that would be an astonishing tour de force for the antireductive crowd. But a semantic difference is only to be expected, and that's all you've produced so far.

From mscracker's helpful link:

The standard line of defense for heterodox theologians—that the bishops (or the Vatican) misunderstood them—is growing old. If the theologians were writing exclusively for their academic peers, they could plausibly make that argument. But invariably they are writing for a popular audience, conveying their views to readers who are at best no more sophisticated than bishops. If their books are subject to misinterpretation by bishops, they are subject to misinterpretation by the general public. And if they are subject to misinterpretation, they can lead people astray. Even if the theologians are right, and their works have been misunderstood, their defense still fails.

Some theologians are "subject to misinterpretation", while others are simply Protestants in Catholic clothing - 'fifth columnists' - in a 'tongue-in-cheek' sort of a way.

On this 'Good Friday', perhaps I could ask for a pause in this debate to encourage all of my fellow-contributors to Will's blog to consider what have justifiably been called 'Three Days that shook the World' - that is, the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and His Resurrection three days later.

Perhaps it would be good to re-read the concluding chapters of the 4 Gospels (Matthew 27/28; Mark 15/16; Luke 23/24; John 19 - 21) and reflect on those dramatic, 'world-changing' events, and how they impact us today.

As Christians, we joyfully accept what the Bible says and welcome the Saviour Who died and rose again:

"He was wounded for our transgressions....the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53v5&6)

"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5v8)

"He is not here, but He is risen.." (Luke 24v6)

"..if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile....but Christ is risen from the dead..." (I Corinthians 15v17 & 20)

There's lots more, but maybe this will get you started!

It's great to be a preacher this weekend!

PastorPhillip,

Aside from the historically dubious, contradictory and tertiary sources often referred to as 'the gospels', do you have any other sources that support your claim that the resurrection or even existence of Jesus ever happened?

Fun fact; this is also Zombie Friday! As told in said gospels, today is rembrance of the very first recorded zombie attack; Matthew chapter 17, vs 51-53

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

The bible; controversy -and- zombies.

Natman

I don't know about Pastor Philip (although I could guess), but off the top of my head, I can think of 62 other sources to support the claim.

:-)

Happy Eostre.

62 other sources supporting an actual zombie attack? aim for the head guys, aim for the head!

It really is rather mystifying seeing atheists associating part of the Christian message with zombies. I don't suppose it has occurred to such 'freethinkers' ('freakthinkers' more like) that we are all 'zombies' if their materialistic view of reality is correct (which, thank God, it is not). If we are all just great bundles of molecules - and nothing more than that - then we are of no more significance than the decomposing remains of a cadaver. If everything has to be 'reduced' to 'dead matter' then everything that we associate with life is really nothing more than a human construct (i.e. an illusion) - as Natman has made clear here (quite how he can make this claim on the basis of his philosophy is beyond me. He seems very confident in making bold assertions about reality when claiming not to believe in objective truth!).

It's rather ridiculous that these people demand evidence, and yet claim that 'truth is subjective'!

It really would be funny if it wasn't so sad.