howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) (09/17/90)
In article <Sep.13.02.47.03.1990.24202@athos.rutgers.edu>johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: >In article <Sep.9.00.47.45.1990.9508@athos.rutgers.edu> howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com writes: ^ >>My perspective was >>and remains that the message is the important factor in this case. The >>validity of Christianity would not to me be undermined if it was found that >>the story <of the resurrection> was fictitious. If it is treated as a >>"teaching story", it would still hold great meaning for me. >Why would it still hold great meaning for you? Because the truth of a message need not always be verified in an event. When I was younger, I used to pass an old bumb on the way to and from church who would beg money from those he saw. As children we were given some money by our parents, some of which was for the offering, and the rest was for a treat after the service. As children sometimes do, we would snigger and make fun at the beggars expense and carry on our way (never once offering him a portion of our treasure, despite his obvious need). One day, being a little careless, I lost the money I normally take and began to cry as I made my way to the church. The bumb asked me why I was crying, and I wailed that I had lost my money for the church collection (inside I was actually bemoaning the treat that would not be mine that day). He reached an old dirty hand into his tattered jacket and pulled out a dollar, and said, "take this and buy yourself a treat after church, God will understand". I accepted the money and vowed to myself that this would be the last time I made fun of this kindly man. In fact I planned to do something for him the very next day, if I could. The day of course did not come, and it was only a few days later that I learned that the old beggar had died, penniless, of exposure and malnutrition, on that very spot where he had been so kind to me despite the cruelness I and others had heaped upon him. The message at various levels in this is obvious; the story however is a complete fabrication. If I had passed this off as being true, or more simply stated it without saying one way or the other, some people could be moved to reflection. Over the years the story could be told and re-told again, as part of larger group of stories (which could all very well be true). If we learned later that this was not an actual event, would we then deny all the changes that have occured because of the story, or would we throw away the meaning in the story because of this; I don't think so. I look at the resurrection story and what has grown from it. I don't need a verification of that event to justify the changes that have occured as a result of the story. In fact I don't need the event itself any longer, I just listen to the message. >You would be deriving >inspiration from a lie, or from wishful thinking. Is that what you want to >base your life on? No I would be deriving inspiration from a story and the message it includes. > If the the resurrection story is just that -- a story -- >then the only "teaching" I would get out of it is either that (1) there is no >God, (2) He is aloof and doesn't care about us, or (3) He hasn't gotten around >to helping us out of our mess because he wants us to do it. Your points 1 and 2 do not follow from the premise. Neither does point 3, but I'm sure he would want us to work our way out of our mess, but he has provided help. >In any case, your Christianity, which does not need the validity of the >resurrection story, is something quite different from New Testament >Christianity. I think not. I simply say that the event itself is not as important as what we have learned from the story of it. If Christianity had not developed at all, the event would not even exist in your life; it is the truth of the message underlying it that has kept it alive all these centuries. The message in my mundane little story of the beggar is no less real because it is a fable, than the ressurection story's message would be if it were a fable. / / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / / / Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N / / (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (09/20/90)
[This is a response to my comment that there's a problem with citing Paul's comments on the Resurrection as support for the Empty Tomb, because the Resurrection does not necessarily imply an empty tomb. --clh] If you don't hold to the inspiration of Scripture, its authority, inerrancy, and infallibility; you can come up with as many doubts as you like with never an answer. For example, by denying the virgin birth, you also deny the sufficiency of Christ as Savior. Because sin entered the world through Adam and death through sin, death spread to all men... (Rom.5:12) Sin is carried through the male, not the female. This is why Christ had to be born of a virgin. To be our sacrafice, He had to be sinless. Comparing the resurrection to the Eucharist is fallacious. Over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ. If one had his stomach contents analyzed, there would be nothing more found than wine and starch. The Lord's supper is not meant to be a cannibalistic ritual, by a remembrance of his death (and ressurection). --Gary [I say again: I am not arguing that there's no Biblical evidence for the empty tomb. I am arguing that Paul's comments on the Resurrection are not evidence for the empty tomb, because Paul does not say anything about it, and his comments would be consistent with accounts of the Resurrection that did not involve the empty tomb. --clh]
correll@brahms.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) (09/23/90)
In article <Sep.17.03.24.18.1990.17451@athos.rutgers.edu> howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) writes: >I look at the resurrection story and what has grown from it. I don't need a >verification of that event to justify the changes that have occured as a result >of the story. In fact I don't need the event itself any longer, I just listen >to the message. > >>You would be deriving >>inspiration from a lie, or from wishful thinking. Is that what you want to >>base your life on? > >No I would be deriving inspiration from a story and the message it includes. > Christianity is more than a collection of stories. Foundational to the nature of Christianity is the idea that God's power is available to us to transform our lives. With or without the resurrection, this is an inspiring concept, but without the resurrection there is no evidence that the concept is true or something we can actually count on in real life. I suspect that, supposing the resurrection were "disproved", Christianity would still exist in some form, probably in the same form it exists in many churches even today. It certainly wouldn't be spreading around the world like it is today, because the missionary motivation and confidence would be gone. -- ---\ Sharon Correll \--------------- ----\ University of Delaware \-------------- -----\ Academic Computing and Instructional Technology \------------- ------\ correll@sun.acs.udel.edu \------------
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (09/25/90)
In article <Sep.17.03.24.18.1990.17451@athos.rutgers.edu> howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) writes: (incredible but cute story about generous vagrant elided) >The message at various levels in this is obvious; the story however is a >complete fabrication. If I had passed this off as being true, or more >simply stated it without saying one way or the other, some people could be >moved to reflection. Over the years the story could be told and re-told again, >as part of larger group of stories (which could all very well be true). If >we learned later that this was not an actual event, would we then deny all the >changes that have occured because of the story, or would we throw away the >meaning in the story because of this; I don't think so. The only obvious message I see in this story is that if you stop and engage a panhandler in conversation, he is likely to give *you* money rather than expect you to give to him. That message is at odds with observed reality; even if there were a correlation with some independently existing reality, it is unclear what implications the message of the story would have for the life of the hearer. Mr. Steel postulates that had he not admitted his authorship of this story as a work of fiction, it might very well have gradually gained mythical proportions, and that the truth of its "obvious" message would outlive and transcend the discovery that the story itself was false. One example of what happens under such circumstances (ignoring for the moment the implications of this assertion about Mr. Steel's beliefs about the Gospel) is given by the legend of the "hundredth monkey", which I'll recap briefly here. Several years ago, in an effort to explain his belief in a universal consciousness, an author made up a story about a remote archipelago where anthropologists on one island were teaching monkeys to wash their coconuts before eating them. Gradually, as the monkeys mastered the art of coconut-washing, other monkeys on other islands far away at the other end of the archipelago spontaneously began to wash their coconuts too, without the benefit of contact with the anthropologists' subjects. Since the author did not clearly disclaim his story as Mr. Steel did, the story has gained the status of folk legend, to the extent that the hoax debunkers were motivated to demolish it quite thoroughly. Yet it (and its underlying message of universal consciousness) lives on; I first heard it in the preaching of a bishop of the Church of England, who offered it as a sort of proof of the existence of God. Yet those who have been made aware of the story's origins have no reason to believe on the grounds of its message that there is such a consciousness, since that message is no longer "There is proof of the existence of a universal consciousness" but rather "there is an author who believes in a universal consciousness". In other words, the message of the story has been changed by the falseness of the story itself. I have difficulty conceiving of any message underlying Mr. Steel's story, or indeed underlying the Resurrection narrative, which would remain unchanged were it to be established that the story was false. >I look at the resurrection story and what has grown from it. I don't need a >verification of that event to justify the changes that have occured as a result >of the story. In fact I don't need the event itself any longer, I just listen >to the message. I have heard this said in many different ways by many different people, but I still don't understand how the message remains valid if the story itself is fabricated. >>You would be deriving >>inspiration from a lie, or from wishful thinking. Is that what you want to >>base your life on? > >No I would be deriving inspiration from a story and the message it includes. This dialogue reminds me very much of John Updike's "Pigeon Feathers." > >> If the the resurrection story is just that -- a story -- >>then the only "teaching" I would get out of it is either that (1) there is no >>God, (2) He is aloof and doesn't care about us, or (3) He hasn't gotten around >>to helping us out of our mess because he wants us to do it. > >Your points 1 and 2 do not follow from the premise. Neither does point 3, but >I'm sure he would want us to work our way out of our mess, but he has provided >help. Mr. Steel is correct here. If the (Resurrection) story is false, it does not carry the meanings which his interlocutor describes; it becomes simply meaningless, but this is ultimately not a strong argument in his favor. > >>In any case, your Christianity, which does not need the validity of the >>resurrection story, is something quite different from New Testament >>Christianity. > >I think not. I simply say that the event itself is not as important as what >we have learned from the story of it. If Christianity had not developed at all, >the event would not even exist in your life; it is the truth of the message >underlying it that has kept it alive all these centuries. The message in my >mundane little story of the beggar is no less real because it is a fable, than >the ressurection story's message would be if it were a fable. I don't think there is anything to be gained by claiming that Mr. Steel's viewpoint is not Christianity; the semantic issue doesn't erase the fact that there are thousands if not millions of members of Christian churches of all denominations who believe something very similar to this. It *is* apparent that Mr. Steel doesn't see his Christianity as a literally personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus. I don't mean thereby to denigrate his beliefs; personally, I don't believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the notion that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. What I *do* believe is that Jesus is alive. Not alive in the sense that he has a physical body and is still tramping around Lake Gennasaret, but alive in the sense that I can communicate with Him, and He with me; alive in the way you would expect a God to be. I have plenty of evidence of that, but none of it could be described as "historical" or "objective". I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead because I know Jesus lives, not because I believe the historical record left behind. Thus I wouldn't be very disturbed by evidence which calls into question the authenticity of that historical record. I admit to having been somewhat disappointed that the Shroud of Turin was pronounced spurious; but I do not believe that the resurrection didn't happen because the Shroud was a fake. On the other hand, were it to be conclusively proven (which it won't) that the whole story of Jesus of Nazareth was one of Aesop's fables, I would be embarrassed; likely the whole church would be embarrassed, and many millions would fall away into despair. Even that, though, would not invalidate my personal experiences with the One I call Jesus. It would simply be time to admit that I had been calling that One by the wrong name, and time to start learning what He chose to reveal of Himself. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
BVAUGHAN@pucc.princeton.edu (Barbara Vaughan) (09/26/90)
In article <Sep.23.03.11.35.1990.5528@athos.rutgers.edu>, correll@brahms.udel.ed >In article <Sep.17.03.24.18.1990.17451@athos.rutgers.edu> howard@53iss6.waterlo >>I look at the resurrection story and what has grown from it. I don't need a >>verification of that event to justify the changes that have occured as a resul >>of the story. > >Christianity is more than a collection of stories. Foundational to the >nature of Christianity is the idea that God's power is available to us >to transform our lives. With or without the resurrection, this is an >inspiring concept, but without the resurrection there is no evidence >that the concept is true or something we can actually count on in real >life. However, the most convincing proof of that promise is when we accept it on faith and find that our lives ARE transformed. I think it was the experience of the transformation of their lives that convinced the first Christians of the truth of the Resurrection, not the Resurrection that convinced them of God's ability to change their lives. If the Resur- rection is 'only' a story, then it is a story that developed and was accepted because people whose lives had been transformed couldn't explain the miracle of the transformation except by the miracle of the Resur- rection. If you read the Acts of the Apostles, you can feel the awe and wonder of people who experienced God's power in their lives; this is mentioned again and again as a miracle, more often than the Resur- rection itself. Barbara Vaughan