Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #1

Post by William »

Q: Is belief in The Resurrection based on fact or based on faith?

From a discussion in another thread;
______________________________


[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]
Let us recall that it was you who stated,
that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.
This is what I stated;

"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."

I also stated;
I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.

Are you saying, NONE of it aligns?
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors.
Apparently there are biblical scholars who accept that in those cases, copying may have occurred.
So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here.
Yes - that it was unnecessary to have four exact copies of the same data.
If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.
Yes.
However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.
Which still wouldn't do away with the idea that the stories were concocted by the priesthood...such would be intelligent enough to realize that to sell the story there needs to be more than one version, especially since there are no coinciding stories circulating outside of the religion.
For example - some believe that [historical] Jesus had scribes, but there is no evidence that anyone was recording his words and nothing of the sort has been found so far.
In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?
I am looking for evidence to the claim that Jesus died. [and was thus resurrected.]
Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?
Based upon the stories regarding Jesus, I would expect that Jesus didn't really die.
First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,
"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".
So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,
"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

Firstly they must have seen him as 'someone else' for them to recognize that 'someone else' had entered into their company.
But what we do not know [and thus cannot assume] is what the writer meant in the use of the words.
Does it mean that their minds were being played with in some unknown manner or does it mean that it was something else about the stranger suddenly in their company which lead them to conclude they were in the presence of someone who was so just like the Jesus they knew, that it must have been him, or was Jesus' body was capable of 'shape-shifting' [changing it's appearance.]

However, in relation to the story of the stranger in the company, we see that the story unfolds over the course of a whole day, with the stranger telling them all sorts of things so that the dots connected [starting out by calling them 'fools' for not being able to do this for themselves] and by the end of the day, we are informed that they had no choice but to accept the evidence that the stranger [who they did not recognize as Jesus because it was a different body] was the same person that they had followed all those previous months.

As soon as they came to that conclusion, the stranger then vanished. [became invisible to them/appeared to no longer be in their company.]
Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener".
Why would Mary know what the gardener looked like? Clearly she assumes a stranger there with the two other strangers is the caretaker and clearly she is confused and distressed.
But most importantly, she does not recognize the stranger until he calls her by her name...so it must have been how the stranger had done this which convinced Mary that it was Jesus.
Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.
So we have hearsay [the stories] and within that, we have incidences which align and form an image of someone who has a distinctly different body than the normal Human form as it appears to be able to do things which normal human forms are not seen to be capable of doing.

But overall, there is nothing about the story of the resurrection [The Subject] which can be pointed to as factual [rather than hearsay] and thus, to believe in said story - one has to do so on faith.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #731

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I risk repeating muyself, but it may clarify a thing or two.

We have the Bible. It purports to record events hat happened. Even if not 'a history book' it should be relied upon for at least significant facts, or it is worthless as anything but literature. We can smile and shrug our shoulders at making the sun stand still or walking on water, as we do about Ramesses II winning the battle of Kadesh virtually on his own, or Alexander solving the Gordian knot. The Battle of Kadesh and the conquests of Alexander are well supported in other respects, so that even if we that we don't really credit the tall stories, we don't toss the whole thing out.

So can we credit the Jesus -story while waving away the miracle stuff, like Jefferson did? And if we do, what does that do for Christianity? Can we try the 'natural explanation' explanation like 'The Flood was just local' or 'the star was a conjunction of planets' or Jesus actually had some wine hidden or some loaves and fishes the disciples didn't know about?

That is one can or worms better not opened because a 'natural explanation' for the miracles makes the Big Four (the centurion's servant, the daughter of Jairus, the healing of bar -Timaeus and the raising of Lazarus) look like fakes, designed to impress and each one getting more daring than the last. And the last one - the fith miracle - being the best trick of the lot. And the thing is that there are clues in each one that show they have to be tricks.

I used to credit that was the actuality, but now i have to reckon that these may be made up stories. If not, how could Mark, Matthew and Luke not have written up the raising of Lazarus? 'They hadn't ever heard of it' or 'they didn't think it important' simply won't do. ,

So the criterion was (for me) what they all agreed on as having Some degree of credibility. So the whole Lazarus thing just went. And I won't try your -all patience by listing all the other stuff that loses credibility. The crucifixion actually has a high degree of credibility - so I'd argue. All four agree. And it is supported by the 'principle of embarrassment': If it something a story - reporter would much rather not have had if he'd been inventing, it's more likely to be true.

But after the women at the empty tomb it is almost total contradiction. Ok, there's a common theme - Jesus rode from the dead in his solid body. But that's not the evidence- that's the claim. Just as Jesus was born in Bethlehem is the purpose of the two made -up nativities, not the evidence for it.

So a supernatural claim, where attested by all four, may have credibility, but generally the supernatural element, let alone the religious one, does not often get supported by any critical approach, never mind not doing unquestioning acceptance.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #732

Post by bluegreenearth »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:17 pm We are assessing one supposed resurrection two thousand years ago, where there isn’t this kind of medical evidence recorded and available.
Well, then this absence of sufficient evidence prohibits me from justifiably inferring the occurrence of a supernatural resurrection in realty. Of course, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I'm not claiming a supernatural resurrection didn't or couldn't occur reality.
The Tanager wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:17 pm
Why? Most inferences to the best explanations will involve ad hoc elements. Just like the theory of electrons does. That theory should not be tentatively rejected.
The electrons hypothesis is tentatively accepted by the consensus of experts in the field because, despite being falsifiable, it continues to survive every experiment which attempts to disprove its novel testable predictions. The supernatural resurrection hypothesis does not yet satisfy those necessary criteria and standards to be justifiably analogous.
The Tanager wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:17 pm
It sounds here that you are faulting historical inferences for not being scientific inferences (i.e., they don’t have novel, testable predictions which can be routinely verified). That is only a fault if science is the only means to knowledge and it’s obviously not.

Yes, we had the stone-moving scenario and that, you may think, had novel, testable predictions that could be replicated. Yes and no. The method the theory talks about is testable in that way (namely, because it is a scientific issue...is that method physically possible in general?) but the historical claim being discussed, that this was the method used is not testable. History is not repeatable in that way.
I never suggested that history needed to be repeatable in that way. In fact, it is precisely because the discussed historical claims are not testable in this way that experimental archaeology is valued by historians. It offers an opportunity to reliably demonstrate that the types of things and events described in historical claims can exist and occur in reality for historians to justify their inferences to the best explanation.
The Tanager wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:17 pm
No. We still presume the electrons exist because something is causing those effects. From the various data, a thing we dub “electron” with the various characteristics needed to create those effects existing, makes the best sense of the data.
Repeated from earlier because it applies here as well: The electrons hypothesis is tentatively accepted by the consensus of experts in the field because, despite being falsifiable, it continues to survive every experiment which attempts to disprove its novel testable predictions. The supernatural resurrection hypothesis does not yet satisfy those necessary criteria and standards to be justifiably analogous.

(A personal message: I'll share with you some similar thoughts to those I recently shared with a theist in another thread...
Seriously, I get it. I get where you are coming from. I REALLY get it. There was also a time in my past life when I harbored and nursed a confident and passionate belief in the claims of a supernatural resurrection. The possibility that God, and not just any god but MY one TRUE personal Lord and Savior, sacrificed and resurrected his only son as payment for my sins was not only a compelling idea for me but intoxicating. My addiction to that intoxicating ideology had me craving and eagerly consuming any and every apologetic argument I could get my hands on that would supply me with what I perceived as irrefutable confirmation of Jesus's historical and supernatural resurrection. Of course, being surrounded by an entire community of like-minded peers and authority figures who regularly reinforced that belief helped to ensure that my propensity to think critically and skeptically was always directed at opposing perspectives rather than the perspective they were pushing on me.

Little did I realize nor would I have cared at the time that my confidence in the Christian belief was artificial. My confidence was artificial because the claim of a supernatural resurrection is not grounded in the same types of demonstrable facts and evidence as those supporting other historical claims for which I was genuinely confident. Because a supernatural resurrection cannot be justifiably inferred in the same way historians can infer the crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar, any confidence in the truth of the supernatural resurrection belief has to be artificial. This would not have bothered me when I was a Christian because my artificial confidence in the belief was functioning as a powerful surrogate for the genuine confidence I should've had in myself instead. I needed to have confidence in the resurrection account, even if it was artificial, because my identity had become inextricably incorporated into it such that a loss of confidence in the Christian belief would effectively equate to a loss of confidence in myself.

So, I completely empathize with your perspective and understand your passionate desire to have the supernatural resurrection hypothesis well-received. I know you've invested a great deal of your own identity and emotional baggage in the supernatural resurrection belief. Yes, I recognize that such an investment compels you to defend the supernatural resurrection claim at all costs. Unfortunately, the approach you are taking here isn't in accordance with all the necessary criteria and standards which have been justifiably established by the experts in the field. If you want the supernatural resurrection hypothesis taken seriously, you'll need to swap-out the pseudo-intellectual apologetic method for a more reliable method and make your case to the consensus of experts.


*Note: You are welcome to have the last response on this topic because, honestly, I'm ready for a break. Thanks for the respectful dialogue.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #733

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Yes indeed. a useful post and I am pleased with the generally polite tone of the conversation, on this and other threads. Of course we are generally familiar with the Buy In to a particular belief, political, religious or (in the uk) Tea vs coffee partisanship, which can get very ugly in the Gastropubs of a Friday night.

The bottom (logical) line must be, I suppose, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. While miracles can't be dismissed because they are miracles, just as other 'supernatural' stuff can't be dismissed simply because it comes under Supernatural', it requires more evidence than 'I saw Mike in the hardware store yesterday'. No supportive evidence, but high plausibility.

"I saw mike in the store yesterday".

"But he died last week!" now the plausibility is down. The supernatural has come in, and 'Such things do not happen' while not disproof, is so contentious, that it does require better plausibility than seeing someone he knows who is still alive.

There is a long, LONG, history of miracle claims, even before Christianity, and afterwards. From Flying Saints to dancing suns. Providing evidence or even plausibility for the resurrection would be a tough job even if it was a common story agreed by all the gospels. But it is absolutely not. (Details upon application 8-) ) The empty tomb is the best of it but the response is 'we don't know'. Not 'Jesus must have got up and walked'. The resurrection -sightings in Paul fail, actually and I have to repeat, the inconsistency of the accounts - that would be shredded by the other side in a court of Law - guarantee that there was originally no solid -body resurrection.

Well the Buy -inners will deny it and say they are totally convinced. But that's not the point. It means that the case for Not buying -in is that bit stronger, and those who are wondering are likely to be that much more persuaded, especially as for rational skeptics, we don't do 'believe -or not'. There are so many Jesuziz on offer in Bible criticism. To suit all pockets and preferences. I still like failed zealot - Messiah Jesus myself. But like a car or favourite food (unlike your wife or music u like) you can change your mind and trade Jesusgod, RabbiJesus, social reformer -Jesus, failed messiah Jesus, and totally made up Jesus for one of the others. No obligation and a special offer on Magdalene -Barbies.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #734

Post by JoeyKnothead »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:22 pm The bottom (logical) line must be, I suppose, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. While miracles can't be dismissed because they are miracles, just as other 'supernatural' stuff can't be dismissed simply because it comes under Supernatural', it requires more evidence than 'I saw Mike in the hardware store yesterday'. No supportive evidence, but high plausibility.
I disagree here.

I find it far more credible to dismiss claims of miracles based on the obviousness of the god belief being a purely human psychological function. We see time and again that god claims're as empty as the space between my ears. The only god claim that can be shown to comport with reality is that not one single god has ever been shown to exist.

Then we have "supernatural". Here we can dismiss the claim outright because what happens within the universe is a product of nature. All our hopes and wishes, all our constructions, everything that happens in nature is a product of nature. That's fact. None of our hopes and wishes, none of our constructions'll ever change that.

The theist relies on this kinda "we gotta at least think it's possible" thinking to maintain their beliefs. They rely on the unprovability of their claims in order to foster em. It's just mental gymnastics designed, psychologically, to comfort those who simply can't face the fact they can't put fact to their goofy, illogical, unscientific, unprovable claims.

We might as well release the delusional folks held up in our mental institutions if we're to play this religion game. After all, I see little difference in believing there is a god, than believing I am God.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #735

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:59 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:22 pm The bottom (logical) line must be, I suppose, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. While miracles can't be dismissed because they are miracles, just as other 'supernatural' stuff can't be dismissed simply because it comes under Supernatural', it requires more evidence than 'I saw Mike in the hardware store yesterday'. No supportive evidence, but high plausibility.
I disagree here.

I find it far more credible to dismiss claims of miracles based on the obviousness of the god belief being a purely human psychological function. We see time and again that god claims're as empty as the space between my ears. The only god claim that can be shown to comport with reality is that not one single god has ever been shown to exist.

Then we have "supernatural". Here we can dismiss the claim outright because what happens within the universe is a product of nature. All our hopes and wishes, all our constructions, everything that happens in nature is a product of nature. That's fact. None of our hopes and wishes, none of our constructions'll ever change that.

The theist relies on this kinda "we gotta at least think it's possible" thinking to maintain their beliefs. They rely on the unprovability of their claims in order to foster em. It's just mental gymnastics designed, psychologically, to comfort those who simply can't face the fact they can't put fact to their goofy, illogical, unscientific, unprovable claims.

We might as well release the delusional folks held up in our mental institutions if we're to play this religion game. After all, I see little difference in believing there is a god, than believing I am God.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #736

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:59 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:22 pm The bottom (logical) line must be, I suppose, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. While miracles can't be dismissed because they are miracles, just as other 'supernatural' stuff can't be dismissed simply because it comes under Supernatural', it requires more evidence than 'I saw Mike in the hardware store yesterday'. No supportive evidence, but high plausibility.
I disagree here.

I find it far more credible to dismiss claims of miracles based on the obviousness of the god belief being a purely human psychological function. We see time and again that god claims're as empty as the space between my ears. The only god claim that can be shown to comport with reality is that not one single god has ever been shown to exist.

Then we have "supernatural". Here we can dismiss the claim outright because what happens within the universe is a product of nature. All our hopes and wishes, all our constructions, everything that happens in nature is a product of nature. That's fact. None of our hopes and wishes, none of our constructions'll ever change that.

The theist relies on this kinda "we gotta at least think it's possible" thinking to maintain their beliefs. They rely on the unprovability of their claims in order to foster em. It's just mental gymnastics designed, psychologically, to comfort those who simply can't face the fact they can't put fact to their goofy, illogical, unscientific, unprovable claims.

We might as well release the delusional folks held up in our mental institutions if we're to play this religion game. After all, I see little difference in believing there is a god, than believing I am God.
That feeds into the discussion. 'clean hands' as they say in legal circles. The more times a witness is found to not be telling the truth, the less credibility they have. This obviously is a major factor in the Bible debate - is reliable or not. And you are quite right that 'it could be possible' does not translate into 'it is probably true'. That is based on a priori assumption of validity before any discussion. Faith-based thinking.

But the thing about 'supernatural' claims is that the odd one or two might turn out to be correct. The claims need to be considered and not taken on trust, but not rejected out of hand because they are 'supernatural'. The thing is that they might turn out to be not what the Believers claimed. NDE's, Yeti, perhaps (was DNA showing it might be an unknown species of Himalayan bear?) Giant squid. Ball lightning. And, just perhaps, the Jesus story, but not the one Christianity thought it was.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #737

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:24 pm
Great bands both, great song, great cover, and great all such as that!

Now, I'm left to ponder if it's me that's strange, or that other bunch.
Don't tell me, I wanna stew on it.

As you so typically do, you leave me with more questions than I started with. So proud just to've met ya.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #738

Post by JoeyKnothead »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:53 pm That feeds into the discussion. 'clean hands' as they say in legal circles. The more times a witness is found to not be telling the truth, the less credibility they have. This obviously is a major factor in the Bible debate - is reliable or not. And you are quite right that 'it could be possible' does not translate into 'it is probably true'. That is based on a priori assumption of validity before any discussion. Faith-based thinking.
Very much.
But the thing about 'supernatural' claims is that the odd one or two might turn out to be correct.
Again, I reject the assertion / implication. All that which happens within the universe is the product of nature.

To propose there's something outside of nature, outside the universe, gets us right back to the god belief that's shown to be nothing more'n wishful thinking.
The claims need to be considered and not taken on trust, but not rejected out of hand because they are 'supernatural'.
They can, and should be dismissed out of hand, because there ain't the first fact to em we can put in our hand.
The thing is that they might turn out to be not what the Believers claimed.
They've turned out to not be the truth, yes.
NDE's, Yeti, perhaps (was DNA showing it might be an unknown species of Himalayan bear?) Giant squid. Ball lightning. And, just perhaps, the Jesus story, but not the one Christianity thought it was.
I have me an NDE every time pretty thing catches me wiping my nose on my sleeve. "Near" is a subjective term, and suffers it the inexactness of it.

Yetis've never been shown to exist. Nor gods.

"Giant" is a subjective term and doesn't reflect the reality that we already knew squids existed. It's merely a noting that we found us a big one of em.

Lightning's been known since folks had eyes, so the fact some of it might be ball shaped ain't so special.

"Perhaps" is only as useful as one wishes to propose something that can't be shown to be true and factual.

There's not one single bit of data available that puts fact to the various Jesus claims, othern if ya go down to Mexico, ya can meet ya a whole bunch of em.

But we play along. We debate, and fuss back and forth, but we ain't no closer to God, the resurrection, or Jesus than when this thread first got put up. Why? Cause some folks just can't accept they got em some goofy ideas about dead folks, and gods, and supernatural claims.

Cause some folks hold em to these goofy notions, and they vote. They're out there in public, speaking and acarrying on, and they're doing real and permanent damage to fact, to reason, to logic, to science. And far too often to the health and livelihood, freedoms and whatnot, of folks who's only crime is to've been born into this age of religious dooficity.

All because in the mass psychological comfort of religious belief, we as a society've had to "play along to get along".

If one man has a god, he's delusional. If a dozen have a god, they're a cult. If a million of em have one, they get tax breaks.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #739

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:58 pm
William wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:24 pm
Great bands both, great song, great cover, and great all such as that!

Now, I'm left to ponder if it's me that's strange, or that other bunch.
Don't tell me, I wanna stew on it.

As you so typically do, you leave me with more questions than I started with. So proud just to've met ya.
Yes - I enjoy the peace we have between us and count it as a treasure Joey.

My post was to remind us all that - since we all have our voices to deal with - we need cut one another a little slack. Go gently with that sword...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #740

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #738]
I have me an NDE every time pretty thing catches me wiping my nose on my sleeve. "Near" is a subjective term, and suffers it the inexactness of it.
Man - even me mom didn't exert than kind of fear in me - though she sure did threaten it on occasion! That girl pretty thing needs supervision!

[I'm feeling for you bro.]

But seriously?

Makes me wanna keep me own OOBEs to meself - but I haveta ask first...are you lumping my OOBEs in with all that?
I mean - granted - OOBEs are not 'near death' in any other way than to show the one doing the experiencing, that something of such-sort might be what occurs when death does finally come a-knocking...


Post Reply