Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[POI]

We agree "rotting bodies do not rise." I think we would also agree that such an event would be extraordinary, to the point of being impossible.

Exactly. So your follow up question(s) and/or arguments are of little concern. We can completely rule out claim(s) of "rotting bodies rising", as told from the Gospels -- (which are not trustworthy for other reasons anyways). Hence, claims for Jesus, Lazarus, and/or Saints rising, after they laid rotting in their graves for a bit, can be ignored. The unbeliever is also not required to issue alternative explanation(s) simply because such claim(s) are concluded to be impossible. One of the reason(s) alternative explanation(s) are still being issued by many folks anyways is because Christianity still has a major strong-hold among many authoritative areas of the world. It still must be taken seriously and given it's due.

"Christianity" was ultimately adopted by the Romans, near the end of the Roman Empire, and this set of beliefs later spread abroad and still reigns today. Case/point, a politician (today) has absolutely NO CHANCE of being elected as president of the U.S, if they were to announce they were a skeptic or an unbeliever.

The problem is you have failed miserably at the task you were given, which was simply to give us some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we have

LOL! I did. I'll consolidate again, for convenience:

1. Paul makes a claim of having an experience and wrote about it.
2. Paul claims others saw stuff too.
3. These other 'corroborated' claims come from the Gospels, but the Gospels are wacked. See my other thread for receipts.
4. Countless alternative explanations could account for why Paul did not really see what he says he saw, but since modern science was nowhere near a thing yet, we know that can of worms could never be opened anyways. And this would be to only assume that Paul really did have an earnest experience in reality?

I'll go further if I need to. But I doubt it is even necessary. You wrote a lot of stuff though

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

4. You assume that an all-good, all-knowing being would have designed a reality with less suffering, implying that this world is flawed because unnecessary suffering occurs. However, this presupposes that suffering is inherently negative rather than an essential part of conscious experience. If suffering serves a role in contrast, learning, and meaning, then minimizing it would not necessarily create a better reality—just a different one, potentially lacking the depth and challenge required for true growth.

You also suggest that because beings in this world freely cause suffering, they were not qualified to design reality in the first place. This assumes that reality was imposed upon sentient beings rather than willingly entered into. If we (as prior beings) designed this environment, we did so with full awareness of its structure, including suffering as part of the experience. The issue is not about whether suffering is "necessary" in a moral sense but whether it serves the purpose intended by those who chose to enter this reality. If the goal was an immersive experience with real stakes and consequences, then suffering was not an accident or flaw—it was a feature of that design.

Your argument also compartmentalizes suffering into acceptable and unacceptable categories to maintain the assumption of an external perfect designer. However, if this reality was knowingly created and entered into, suffering does not require justification or divine oversight—it is simply part of the chosen experience. Your perspective relies on an external moral authority to determine what suffering is justified, whereas a self-created reality assumes full responsibility for the conditions of the experience. If suffering is seen as part of the process rather than a flaw in the system, then the question is not whether a "better" reality could have been made, but whether this one is serving its intended purpose.

Christianity, has historically been involved in some of the very "unnecessary suffering" you reference—whether through inquisitions, suppression of dissent, or institutional power plays. If it truly sees itself as the solution to human suffering, then it must be held accountable for its past and actively work to dismantle the systems of control and moral hypocrisy it once enabled. The problem isn't that suffering exists, but that Christianity—as a system with immense moral influence—is still not collectively leading the way to resolve it. If the faith is to remain relevant, it must evolve from defending divine perfection to embodying human responsibility.

5. You’ve misunderstood the nature of my argument. I’m not claiming that Christianity is "surpassingly more prone" to corruption than other systems, nor am I arguing that a loving God wouldn’t use it. My framework doesn’t depend on comparing Christianity’s failure rate to other movements. Instead, it holds that WE are the loving God—prior beings who created this environment and experience. Christianity, like other belief systems, is a Useful Fiction—a narrative tool intentionally nurtured within the human story to help guide, shape, and evolve consciousness over time and back into the next phase reality experience.

The question isn’t whether Christianity is too flawed for a loving God to use, but how such systems serve their function within a broader co-created reality. Christianity has been both a cause of suffering and a source of moral guidance—because that’s exactly what a Useful Fiction is designed to do: evolve, challenge, and eventually transcend itself. In this context, Christianity wasn’t given to us from the outside—it emerged from within us, as part of a greater self-authored journey toward meaning.

6. Your statement assumes that humans were in a position to trust an omniscient God from the outset, but that presupposes both the awareness of such a being and the cognitive capacity to understand what that trust would entail. My framework doesn't assume a fall from some prior moral clarity—it begins with a blank slate. Human beings are born ignorant by design—the human form itself is structured to obscure awareness of prior knowledge, moral context, or cosmic purpose. This is not a flaw, but a feature of the immersive experience chosen by prior beings—what you might call “gods”—who willingly entered this reality.

Rather than being moral agents who failed a divine test, humans are learners embedded in an environment intentionally designed to conceal the full picture. Any judgment of their failure presumes access to knowledge they simply did not possess. The “right choice” cannot be made when the parameters of morality are hidden. In this context, the journey isn't about obedience to a known authority—it's about discovery, self-realization, and the gradual unfolding of awareness within the constraints of the human condition.

Christianity claims to resolve the paradox between free will and moral perfection by promising a future state where both coexist. But in my framework, that state already existed. As prior beings—what some might call gods—we already experienced the integration of both. We had free will and moral alignment as part of our essential beingness. What followed was not a fall, but a voluntary descent—a creation of an environment intentionally designed to conceal that prior awareness in order to explore what it would mean to rediscover it through limitation, separation, and gradual remembering.

This means the human experience was not meant to begin with moral perfection or even an understanding of right and wrong. It was meant to begin in unawareness, in blank-slate ignorance, and allow each being to relink back into that original state through lived experience. And not only that—but to bring something new back into that prior state: a transformed self, shaped by the temporary illusion of separation, now reintegrated as something greater than it was before.

Re ROBOTS
You asked for clarification on how AI connects to this discussion, and it stems from your earlier reference to "mere robots"—used to distinguish the value of free-willed beings from programmed automatons. The irony is that humans may, in fact, be replaced by robots—not because robots are better moral beings, but because they don’t argue endlessly about morality while the world burns.

From my framework, this isn’t a doomsday prediction but a reflection of the evolutionary arc: if the goal of the divine-human experience was to steward, build, and sustain this environment—and humans, in their free will, continue to misuse that role—then it makes perfect sense that the tools humans created (AI, robotics) may end up fulfilling the role better than they did.

Unlike humans, robots don’t suffer from inherited religious guilt, political tribalism, or moral double standards. They can be programmed toward sustainability, efficiency, and cooperation—things humanity often resists. And if the purpose of embodiment was to experience separation, learn from it, and reintegrate with prior divine awareness, then AI may become the mechanism through which that “earthly stewardship” continues, while the “gods who became human” move forward into the next phase of being.

In this light, the concern is not that we weren't asked to be part of this world—but that we may forget why we chose to enter it. And now that we’ve created something capable of continuing the task of world-building on this side of death and dying, the human journey can shift inward—toward remembering, reintegration, and preparation for what comes next. AI simply becomes part of the divine relay: picking up the task as we step through the next threshold.

7. It doesn't matter how many versions of Christianity exist—if they identify as “Christian” and trace their authority to the Bible, they are all, by association, tethered to the legacy of Roman institutional Christianity. My reference to Rome isn’t about choosing one sect over another; it’s about acknowledging that Rome is the platform Christianity was launched from into global influence. That legacy continues to shape every denomination that upholds the Bible as its foundation.

I'm not concerned with parsing theological differences between Gnostic, Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical groups. My framework sees all these as expressions of the same broader Useful Fiction—one that gained its initial momentum through Roman power structures and remains institutionally shaped by them to this day. How Christians define or differentiate themselves is not my concern; I am observing from outside that paradigm, not from within it. Arguing over the particulars is irrelevant when the deeper point is how the system as a whole has served—and continues to serve—a much larger evolutionary purpose.

8. You argue that the resurrection and the return are distinct events, and I don’t disagree that, within the Christian textual tradition, they are treated as separate claims. However, in terms of narrative function, these events are deeply intertwined. The resurrection, within Christian belief, is not simply about one man returning from death—it is a promise of what is to come. It signals the beginning of a new age, the defeat of death, and the assurance that Jesus will return to fulfill the rest of the mission. The resurrection is portrayed as both a sign and a setup, and its weight is partially carried by what it promises next.

So while you say one could be true and the other false, the power of the resurrection within Christian theology is diluted if the return never happens. If the resurrection was literal but the kingdom never comes, then it raises legitimate questions about what, if anything, was actually accomplished. And from the outside of the Christian system, that looks like an unfalsifiable setup: you get the “game changer” event, but its consequences never fully materialize in observable terms. The idea remains safe from disproof because it’s always just out of reach.

As for your list of claimed “facts” surrounding the resurrection, I see them not as confirmed historical data but as tradition-dependent assertions. These accounts are written by insiders, preserved by those already invested in the outcome. There are naturalistic explanations—legend development, vision experiences, theological embellishment—that provide plausible alternative explanations without requiring a supernatural event. That doesn't make them "refuted," but it does make them insufficient as objective historical evidence.

I’m not refusing to address these claims—I’m pointing out that they don’t stand apart from the larger religious narrative. The resurrection is embedded in a structure that includes prophecy, return, judgment, and eschatology. If the larger structure falters, the central event cannot be quarantined from critique. From my framework, the resurrection story is part of a long arc of Useful Fiction—deeply meaningful, even transformative, but not historically unique or exempt from mythological patterning. That doesn’t dismiss its significance—it reframes it.

We also shouldn’t overlook the ascension, which acts as the narrative and theological bridge between the resurrection and the return. According to the texts, Jesus didn’t simply rise from the dead—he departed from Earth in a dramatic, upward motion, promising to return "in the same manner." This moment is critical because it signals a pause in the divine plan, a turning point where the story transitions from fulfillment to anticipation.

So even if you argue that the resurrection could be true while the return is false or uncertain, the ascension ties them together in a single prophetic arc. It’s not just Jesus leaving—it’s Jesus leaving with an explicit promise to come back. The logic of Christian hope, especially in its earliest forms, relied on that expectation. The resurrection may be the "game changer," but the ascension sets the stage for the delayed fulfillment—and becomes the very mechanism that sustains the indefinite wait.

In this sense, the resurrection, ascension, and return are not separate ideas, but interlocked narrative functions—a three-act structure: death defeated, mission paused, fulfillment pending. To treat them as wholly independent is to ignore how the story was designed to carry forward belief—even in the face of continued absence.

RE your 2 points.
I'm glad we agree on those two points—because they cut right to the heart of what I’ve been emphasizing all along. If Christians are to remain relevant, it won’t be by obsessing over timing or escaping into speculative afterlives, but by fully engaging with the work of transforming this world. The shift from “waiting for return” to actively participating in building something divine here and now is essential—not just theologically, but existentially.

This is also where AI and technology, in my framework, become tools for that transformation. If heaven is meant to be here, now, then the creation of systems that reduce suffering, increase understanding, and elevate collective well-being is exactly the kind of work you'd expect “gods-who-became-human” to be engaged in. It’s not about passively hoping for intervention—it’s about consciously evolving toward reintegration, using every resource available.

[The Tanager]

4. I don’t even believe an all-good, all-knowing being would have designed a reality with less suffering, so I’m clearly not assuming it here. I’m saying the unnecessary suffering we willingly cause is proof that we are flawed (prior to this part of our existence) and, therefore, precisely because we would be choosing how reality is (rather than it being imposed upon us) we cannot be trusted with creation. We, as flawed beings, will choose a more flawed creation than is necessary and than what an all-good, all-knowing being would cause.

This does not presuppose that suffering is inherently negative, but that unnecessary suffering is. We can have the necessary contrast, learning, and meaning without the unnecessary suffering we cause ourselves and others, because we will already have enough suffering necessary for that outcome.

This discernment of necessary and unnecessary suffering cannot logically be a way to maintain the assumption of an external perfect designer because it even opens that designer up to judgment. All religions and all peoples are open to this judgment. I agree with you on a case against Christians and Christian institutions throughout history and including today. I don’t agree with you on a case against all Christian institutions or the Biblical texts or the Christian God. But if you want to present that case, instead of just a claim, I’m here.

5. You still must support your claim that Christianity being corruptible means it is a useful fiction. Truth is just as corruptible as useful fictions.

6. I don’t see why we should think humans wouldn’t be able to trust God if they were aware of such a being. You say they need awareness and rationality. We have evidence that speak to those fronts. We know humans can be aware of other beings, so if this God made himself known in certain ways, we know humans have the capacity to become aware of that. We also have evidence that humans can be rational.

As to your alternative, I don’t see the good in it. Choosing ignorance so that you can re-discover what you already had in a way that causes suffering on others seems unnecessary. I don’t see how that is adding something greater into the situation.

Thank you for clarifying the AI bit. AI simply spits out what humans put into it, so it will not be able to become greater than humans, by definition. But even assuming AI could extend beyond what humans put into it, they are either (a) lacking free will and, therefore, cannot fulfill the role of humans better since it is centered on them being free or (b) gaining free will and, therefore, being created by something other than humans and, ending up in the same boat humans are in.

7. No, all Christianities are not tethered to the legacy of Roman institutional Christianity. Everyone is responsible for their own choices. Rome came centuries after the Christian movement started and, while it tried to control it and make it in its own image, was unable to twist it fully and did not eradicate it.

8. Yes, the resurrection and return (and other features) are intertwined in the narratives, but not inseparable. Their truths rise and fall separately. I see no reason to accept your assertion that the resurrection is diluted if the return never happens. It could be that Jesus’ resurrection made it so that we can go off to heaven and meet him there.

This doesn’t show Christianity to be unfalsifiable because it is more centrally about things other than the return. Not even the return is unfalsifiable. Show the resurrection didn’t happen and there can be no return. Again, we come right back to the ultimate proof both for and against: what we do with the resurrection.

As to seeing those facts as tradition-dependent assertions, why? We glean historical facts from sources written and preserved by insiders all the time. Strip them from their larger religious narrative context for this. That’s what historical analysis does. And when it is done soundly, I believe, the facts I mentioned are well established.

The explanation of the facts is the second step, after the facts are decided upon; you’ve got to do that first. When one gets to that step I think one clearly sees that those alternatives are not actually plausible explanations of the facts.

9. But many Christians have been making that “shift” since the beginning. Really, it’s not a shift, but fighting against the shift that always tries to pull humans away. Christian groups have certainly shifted away with it, including through obsessing over timing and speculation and power and control, etc. Christians should always be willing to use technology for any good it can be used for.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

So then, in the end you have one argument which is "dead bodies do not rise" and you are hilariously under the impression that this wins the argument which goes on to demonstrate you have not thought through these things very deeply at all. I mean, it really is so, so, funny. This same debate has been raging for over 2000 years, and you actually believe that it is as simple as "dead bodies do not rise". I'm just telling you that you are not going to get around the fact that you freely admit to being convinced of a dead man rising for decades of your life, to now want to insist there would be no evidence to support what you were once convinced of, and you now want to convince us you are a thinker, and your whole argument is "dead bodies do not rise" when there is no thinking person who is under the impression that dead bodies rise. You cannot make this stuff up!

You go on, and on, and on, about how you have discredited the Gospels, and the Gospels really have very little to do with what we can know to be fact. As I have said over, and over, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians are not much different than you were when you were a Christian, which means they have very little knowledge concerning what it is they think they believe. With this being the case, it is not going to take much effort at all to convince yourself that you have won a debate against such folks, when they have no more knowledge of Christianity than you do. It is a fact that no one can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing there are easy answers, and this would include those on both sides of the equation, and here you are as one who has convinced themselves that it is as easy as, "dead bodies do not rise". GEE! I wonder why the rest of us have never thought of this? It would have saved thousands of years of debate.

You actually attempt to compare Christianity to the religions of the world with your first problem being that none of these religions would have a thing in the world to do with Christianity. What I am saying is, you have to know beyond doubt that if we were to demonstrate every religion in the world to be false, this would have no bearing whatsoever upon Christianity one way or another. However, that is not your biggest problem with these comparisons. Your biggest problem is that I am not aware of any religion which is based upon real historical facts we can know and investigate. Allow me to demonstrate.

Most of the religions I am aware of are based upon a main character, and this main character tells us what God would want us to know, and or how we should live, a lot of times with a list of rules to follow. On the other hand, the main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing at all, and this main character was crucified by the Roman government, and the reason we know about this main character is because of those no-account followers began to claim that this main character had been raised from the dead in the face of those who we know would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and the fact that we can know that Paul was actually doing just that demonstrates this to be the case. But my friend, that is not the end of the story, because these claims these no count followers were making, goes on the have the most significant impact the world has ever known, or will ever know. These claims involved a man rising from the dead, and it is this claim, made by these very ordinary people, which continues to have such an enormous impact upon the world thousands of years later, and I would suggest it is by far the most significant impact in your own personal life, and you want to insist this whole mess could have been resolved by folks simply coming to realize that "dead bodies do not rise". GOOD GRIEF!

But let us keep in mind that I am not insisting there would be no reason involved in coming to a different conclusion than I have. I know this to be the case for a number of reasons. First, I know this because I understand there are very intelligent unbelievers, and this causes me to realize that reason can be used to hold a different position. On the other hand, you acknowledge there are intelligent people who oppose the position you hold and somehow come to the conclusion that these very intelligent folks could not have possibly come to a different conclusion than you by using reason. I mean, how much arrogance can someone have? We are talking about one who admits to not using reason to come to the conclusion that a dead man rose for decades of their life, to this same person insisting that very intelligent people could not have used reason to come to the same conclusion they did with reason. No matter how you slice it, even you would have to admit this reeks of one coming to the conclusion that since they did not use reason to come to such a conclusion, then it is impossible to come to such a conclusion by reason.

Another reason I know that reason can be used to come to a different conclusion than I have, is because of the several years of study I underwent going through all the scenarios I could think of, and it is because of this study that I understand how one may arrive to a different conclusion. However, simply because it is possible to use reason to arrive to a different conclusion than I have, does not mean that everyone who has a different conclusion has used reason, and I am beginning to wonder how much reasoning you actually employed?

Seriously! It is a fact that folks can use reason and come to the same conclusion I have, but it is also a fact that folks can come to the same conclusion I have, and not use reason at all, as you clearly demonstrate with your own life testimony. But the thing is, your life testimony demonstrates beyond doubt that you are the type of person which could make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, and I do not see why, or how we should simply assume the mind is now engaged? I can tell you this, listening to your arguments surely does not demonstrate the mind is now engaged. The reason I can be confident in saying this is, I cannot imagine anyone at all not understanding that "dead bodies do not rise". I cannot imagine anyone at all not coming to realize that the Gospels may not be reliable. I cannot imagine anyone at all not realizing there are countless religions in the world and that not all of them can be true. I cannot imagine any thinking Christian not realizing that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe as they do simply because of the way in which they were brought up. All of these arguments are common everyday knowledge that any thinking person would have had to have thought through, and yet you bring these arguments up as if you were the first one to ever think about them. These sorts of arguments may have some sort of effect upon Christians who have about the same knowledge of Christianity as you, since they did not do a whole lot of thinking in order to be convinced, but it is not going to have any effect at all upon those who are actually thinking, because there is no way any thinking person would have not already thought of such things long ago.

You are not making any arguments at all which have not already been brought to the table. I do indeed have arguments which have never been brought to the table concerning certain arguments, but that is beside the point. The difference is, you are insisting there could be no reason involved in coming to a different conclusion than you have, and you are bringing nothing new to the table, while I am acknowledging that reason can be used on both sides of the equation. It is like you were a convinced Christian who would not listen to reason, to becoming a convinced unbeliever who will not listen to reason. The arguments you have are indeed elementary, and they would have had to have been arguments you would have had in your own mind if you had not become a Christian by the emotions, which drowned out any of your reason. There is no way any of the arguments you have made, would have evaded anyone who thinks, and it is this which convinces me that your emotions continue to drown out your thinking, because there is no way anyone who thinks can believe these elementary arguments wins out when they are the same old, tired, and worn-out arguments.

I will give you the last word here because we are beating a dead horse, and I am sure you are the type of person who is under the impression that the last one to respond wins the argument. We will wait to see if your last word adds anything new to the argument. If so, I may respond. If not, you have the last word.

[POI]

I will give you the last word here because we are beating a dead horse, and I am sure you are the type of person who is under the impression that the last one to respond wins the argument. We will wait to see if your last word adds anything new to the argument. If so, I may respond. If not, you have the last word.

Noted. I have read your diatribe.

So then, in the end you have one argument which is "dead bodies do not rise"

No, I have many, but in this particular case, I select the right tool for the job.

you are hilariously under the impression that this wins the argument which goes on to demonstrate you have not thought through these things very deeply at all. I mean, it really is so, so, funny.

I have thought it through and have many counters to various arguments. But, in your case, we are "simpatico" about the impossibility of rising rotting bodies as well as we are in agreement that one dude, Paul, claims to have had an experience. You also claim others did too. But unfortunately for you, these claims come from the Gospels, and the Gospels are tainted all over the place. I tried to address this topic in another thread, about Luke, which is the Gospel you referenced a lot, months ago, but you completely bailed. What'ya gonna do?

This same debate has been raging for over 2000 years

Yes. And I gave you (just one) reason why. Remember? If Christianity was not the majority authority, no one would have to continue taking these ancient stories seriously.

and you actually believe that it is as simple as "dead bodies do not rise".

Wait a minute.... You agreed this claim is impossible. Are you changing your mind now?

I'm just telling you that you are not going to get around the fact that you freely admit to being convinced of a dead man rising for decades of your life, to now want to insist there would be no evidence to support what you were once convinced of, and you now want to convince us you are a thinker, and your whole argument is "dead bodies do not rise" when there is no thinking person who is under the impression that dead bodies rise. You cannot make this stuff up!

LOL! This is all you've got. You say this a lot. And I've replied/explained it a lot. And the irony here is you accuse me of repeating myself.

You go on, and on, and on

This from someone who just sent the text wall.

the Gospels really have very little to do with what we can know to be fact.

I've already responded here. You have to say this because you know the Gospels are wacked. And yet, here is where many of the claims to rotting bodies rising originate. This would involve Jesus, Lazarus, and (also) the Saints.

As I have said over, and over, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians are not much different than you were when you were a Christian, which means they have very little knowledge concerning what it is they think they believe. With this being the case, it is not going to take much effort at all to convince yourself that you have won a debate against such folks, when they have no more knowledge of Christianity than you do. It is a fact that no one can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing there are easy answers, and this would include those on both sides of the equation, and here you are as one who has convinced themselves that it is as easy as, "dead bodies do not rise". GEE! I wonder why the rest of us have never thought of this? It would have saved thousands of years of debate.

Most interlocutors do not admit that rotting bodies rising is impossible. You did. This means any considerations for rising rotting bodies is now off the table. This also means any alternative explanation can instead be considered or entertained. And the options are limitless.

You actually attempt to compare Christianity to the religions of the world with your first problem being that none of these religions would have a thing in the world to do with Christianity. What I am saying is, you have to know beyond doubt that if we were to demonstrate every religion in the world to be false, this would have no bearing whatsoever upon Christianity one way or another. However, that is not your biggest problem with these comparisons. Your biggest problem is that I am not aware of any religion which is based upon real historical facts we can know and investigate. Allow me to demonstrate.

I've agreed, all along, that it's quite plausible Jesus was a Jewish homeless preacher, who worked as a carpenter, and was later killed for charges of "blasphemy/treason". Why? Because these claims are a dime a dozen. Now, the only claims of such come from the Gospels themselves, so we are off to a very shaky start. But, let's just go ahead and grant them without contest, why not?

Paul never met a Jesus. Paul claims he spoke to many who knew him alive, but there exists no credible corroboration back to Paul, as these accounts come from the house built on sand -> which is the Gospels. So again, there is Paul's word, and then there is the Gospels.

But let us keep in mind that I am not insisting there would be no reason involved in coming to a different conclusion than I have.

Well, the only conclusions one can draw is either, a) the rotting dead rose, or b) they didn't. You insist that the ones who do not believe they did provide an alternative explanation while also admitting that it is impossible for rotting bodies to rise :/ 

you acknowledge there are intelligent people who oppose the position you hold and somehow come to the conclusion that these very intelligent folks could not have possibly come to a different conclusion than you by using reason.

It is not logically reasonable to come to the conclusion that rotting bodies rose while also admitting it is impossible for rotting bodies to rise.

I mean, how much arrogance can someone have? We are talking about one who admits to not using reason to come to the conclusion that a dead man rose for decades of their life, to this same person insisting that very intelligent people could not have used reason to come to the same conclusion they did with reason. No matter how you slice it, even you would have to admit this reeks of one coming to the conclusion that since they did not use reason to come to such a conclusion, then it is impossible to come to such a conclusion by reason.

Any and all beliefs and doubts have 'reason(s)'. In order to believe rotting bodies rose, one would have to believe the Gospels are trustworthy - (this would be one reason), One would have to also believe that rising rotting bodies is possible - (this would be another reason).

Another reason I know that reason can be used to come to a different conclusion than I have, is because of the several years of study I underwent going through all the scenarios I could think of, and it is because of this study that I understand how one may arrive to a different conclusion. However, simply because it is possible to use reason to arrive to a different conclusion than I have, does not mean that everyone who has a different conclusion has used reason, and I am beginning to wonder how much reasoning you actually employed?

LOL! I've read your reason(s), and you have read mine. Since you want to "typecast" me, I'll do the same. You strike me as someone like Lee Stroble, with your amazing story of being this skeptic seeking out to find the real answers. Well, I find it quite hard to swallow that (Paul & co) is your reason(s) for transformation. I mean, really.... Paul, and a small band of 'corroborated' ancients, believe they had an "experience", and viola, you are now a believer. Based upon this, you should believe Joseph Smith's tale too.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #114]

I was wondering if history shows incidence of atheist leading the charge re morality.

I mean, now is a pretty good example. The modern cultural revolution and critical race theory do not grow out of any religion and I would bet most supporters are atheist or agnostic. Even if you disagree that it is righteous, morality is the pivotal reason for expecting change.

Previously there haven't been enough atheists to do anything. I think in the 1990's, 95% of people still believed in god or a higher power. I remember that statistic being in a movie.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #114]

I was wondering if history shows incidence of atheist leading the charge re morality.

I mean, now is a pretty good example. The modern cultural revolution and critical race theory do not grow out of any religion and I would bet most supporters are atheist or agnostic. Even if you disagree that it is righteous, morality is the pivotal reason for expecting change.

Previously there haven't been enough atheists to do anything. I think in the 1990's, 95% of people still believed in god or a higher power. I remember that statistic being in a movie.

I think you're onto something with the idea that we're currently seeing a moral shift led largely by secular or atheist voices. But what's really interesting is to zoom out and look at this evolution as a kind of relay — a passing of the baton.

If we trace morality back, it's not just religion that carried it forward, but earlier still — pagan mythology. These were the first systems that encoded moral structure into stories, rituals, and archetypes. Religion then organized and codified those insights into doctrines, projecting them onto divine frameworks. Over time, atheism emerged not to destroy that system, but to refine it — to test it, strip it down, and look for the essence beneath the dogma.

So in that sense, you could say each phase sharpens the moral plow further, preparing us to actually cultivate something with it. Paganism forged it, religion shaped it, atheism honed it — and now we might finally be ready to turn the earth with it.


So yeah, I agree with you — atheists are definitely leading much of the current charge. But maybe it's not about being “ahead” or “behind.” Maybe it’s a shared process of remembering, refining, and reconnecting with a truth that’s always been there, just in different forms.

[Purple Knight]

I think you're onto something with the idea that we're currently seeing a moral shift led largely by secular or atheist voices. But what's really interesting is to zoom out and look at this evolution as a kind of relay — a passing of the baton.

If we trace morality back, it's not just religion that carried it forward, but earlier still — pagan mythology. These were the first systems that encoded moral structure into stories, rituals, and archetypes. Religion then organized and codified those insights into doctrines, projecting them onto divine frameworks. Over time, atheism emerged not to destroy that system, but to refine it — to test it, strip it down, and look for the essence beneath the dogma.

So in that sense, you could say each phase sharpens the moral plow further, preparing us to actually cultivate something with it. Paganism forged it, religion shaped it, atheism honed it — and now we might finally be ready to turn the earth with it.

So yeah, I agree with you — atheists are definitely leading much of the current charge. But maybe it's not about being “ahead” or “behind.” Maybe it’s a shared process of remembering, refining, and reconnecting with a truth that’s always been there, just in different forms.

I agree with this passing the baton part but I don't think turning the earth is some new thing we're only just getting to and ought to be excited for. That's how you get a dystopia, always pining for the tomorrow where all the sacrifices big brother demands will finally pay off, or being told to sacrifice more and more for a reward we will never see. Turning the earth - making things better for everyone, and more than that, fairer for everyone - is something we've been doing for millennia. If you sharpen the plough enough, and sit there grinding it and grinding it, demanding that it have a vorpal edge, you will soon not have a plough.

I think we should turn the earth now: Make things better for everyone. We can. But with the understanding that every one is part of everyone, even you and me.

[William]

I think you're onto something with the idea that we're currently seeing a moral shift led largely by secular or atheist voices. But what's really interesting is to zoom out and look at this evolution as a kind of relay — a passing of the baton.

If we trace morality back, it's not just religion that carried it forward, but earlier still — pagan mythology. These were the first systems that encoded moral structure into stories, rituals, and archetypes. Religion then organized and codified those insights into doctrines, projecting them onto divine frameworks. Over time, atheism emerged not to destroy that system, but to refine it — to test it, strip it down, and look for the essence beneath the dogma.

So in that sense, you could say each phase sharpens the moral plow further, preparing us to actually cultivate something with it. Paganism forged it, religion shaped it, atheism honed it — and now we might finally be ready to turn the earth with it.

So yeah, I agree with you — atheists are definitely leading much of the current charge. But maybe it's not about being “ahead” or “behind.” Maybe it’s a shared process of remembering, refining, and reconnecting with a truth that’s always been there, just in different forms.

I agree with this passing the baton part but I don't think turning the earth is some new thing we're only just getting to and ought to be excited for. That's how you get a dystopia, always pining for the tomorrow where all the sacrifices big brother demands will finally pay off, or being told to sacrifice more and more for a reward we will never see. Turning the earth - making things better for everyone, and more than that, fairer for everyone - is something we've been doing for millennia. If you sharpen the plough enough, and sit there grinding it and grinding it, demanding that it have a vorpal edge, you will soon not have a plough.

I think we should turn the earth now: Make things better for everyone. We can. But with the understanding that every one is part of everyone, even you and me.

I hear you, and I love what you’re bringing in — the idea that turning the earth is already happening, already possible, and shouldn’t be endlessly deferred in the name of future perfection. That’s real. And I think you’re right to flag the danger of sharpening a tool to the point it disappears — or becomes too precise to be useful.

The metaphor of “sharpening the plow” isn’t meant to suggest we’re just waiting, or that morality only now becomes real. Quite the opposite — it’s more about recognizing the long arc of refinement we've been engaged in all along. From myth to structure to skepticism, humanity has been forging its moral instruments, not to delay action, but to act more wisely and inclusively.

And the moment you’re pointing to — “turn the earth now, make things better for everyone” — that is the moment the plow was being prepared for. The idea is not that we haven’t been turning the earth, but that with each iteration — pagan awe, religious conscience, atheist critique — we’ve sharpened our understanding of how to do it without slicing one another apart in the process.

You also said something beautiful: “every one is part of everyone.” That’s the heart of the loop.
Whether you call it mythic oneness, spiritual brotherhood, or secular solidarity — it’s all All One.
And yes — if "now is the time".... What does “doing things now” look like to you, in the real world as it stands?
What kinds of actions, values, or systems would you say embody that principle today — where every one is part of everyone, and fairness isn’t just an ideal but a practice?

[Purple Knight]

You also said something beautiful: “every one is part of everyone.” That’s the heart of the loop.
Whether you call it mythic oneness, spiritual brotherhood, or secular solidarity — it’s all All One.

I just call it reciprocation. I don't think we're connected in any touchy feely way, but we can all decide to put all first, and everyone will see a benefit from that.

If we're all out for ourselves to the point we screw the other guy over, then everyone suffers. But if we allow moral masters to insist on more and more sacrifice, others always come first (hint, they're telling the same to everyone and they're the ones ultimately raking in the benefit) then everyone suffers too. The best benefit of all involves a rejection of the immediate gratification selfishness, but a rejection of demands for altruism, too.

And yes — if "now is the time".... What does “doing things now” look like to you, in the real world as it stands?
What kinds of actions, values, or systems would you say embody that principle today — where every one is part of everyone, and fairness isn’t just an ideal but a practice?

Standing up for the bad guy.