Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[WinePusher]

And just so you know, terming such as 'flying corpses' is not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of resurrection is that the person experiencing it is ALIVE. Not 'undead,' or 'zombie,' or walking/flying corpses. Indeed, most folks who believe in resurrection believe that resurrected bodies are NOT the ones 'buried,' or at least, not completely...the new bodies are NEW, perfected, and very much alive, healthy and the precise opposite of 'corpse.' That's the whole point.

So you may continue to describe these events as 'walking/flying corpses' if you want to...but you need to be aware that doing so is an extremely inaccurate, as well as uncivil, way of presenting the doctrines and beliefs of those who believe in resurrection.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why I (and many others) have chosen to ignore him. Instead of writing and arguing in a sophisticated, serious way he chooses to write in a juvenile, unintelligent way and uses incredibly asisnine terms such as 'maggot infested body' 'skydaddy' 'rudolph the red nose reindeer' and 'flying corpse.' Not only are all these juvenile and immature arguments, they are also FACTUALLY INCORRECT .

But if all you want is the titillation and irritation value, and don't care about accurately presenting the beliefs you are arguing against, go ahead. You won't be arguing against any belief anybody actually holds, but hey......free speech and all that.

Well, in my opinion this would be the fault of the forum administrators and moderators for not rebuking and warning no evidence no belief's juvenile and immature debating style. Yes, obviously serious debaters can and have ignored him but still, the mods should look to sanction those users whose only purpose is to 'titillate and irritate' as opposed to actually having a serious and accurate debate.

[Danmark]

The majority of great thinkers, philosophers and scientists throughout history have been Christian and have professed belief in God.

Wow really? This is quite a claim. I mean "the belief in God" part I can buy, but the "have been Christian" part I can't.

I doubt that any non-Christian would ever agree to your claim. And I wouldn't be certain that all Christians would either.

Correct, but of course it isn't a matter of whether some one agrees or not. It is a matter of proof or documentation. He has given none, nor has he defined 'great thinkers.' He also has not given a time frame. Certainly 100% of the 'great thinkers' were not Christian before the Christian era.

Well, at the time when I wrote that I had a few major names in mind: Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Decartes, Boethius, Boyal, Spinosa, Faraday and many more. Again, those were just the few that popped into my head. All these individuals are some of the greatest thinkers, scientists and philosophers of all time and they all professed belief in God. My point was to refute the absurd atheist notion that theists will 'believe absolutely anything' and are 'gulliable' and 'stupid' because the world's most enlightened and intelligent people were believers.

Thank you for clarifying. BTW Baruch Spinoza was a secular Jew, not a Christian. He was eventually expelled from his Jewish community but did not convert to Christianity. There are elements of pantheism and atheism in his thinking and he definitely did not believe in a personal god, Christian or Jewish.

I certainly agree it is incorrect to make a blanket statement that theists will "believe absolutely anything' and are 'gulliable' [sic] and 'stupid,'" but it is incorrect to write as you did that, "the world's most enlightened and intelligent people were believers."

It is more accurate to write "some of "the world's most enlightened and intelligent people have been Christians AND some of "the world's most enlightened and intelligent people have been non theists or atheists."

[Boosh]

Well, at the time when I wrote that I had a few major names in mind: Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Decartes, Boethius, Boyal, Spinosa, Faraday and many more. Again, those were just the few that popped into my head. All these individuals are some of the greatest thinkers, scientists and philosophers of all time and they all professed belief in God. My point was to refute the absurd atheist notion that theists will 'believe absolutely anything' and are 'gulliable' and 'stupid' because the world's most enlightened and intelligent people were believers.

I think you're being a little disingenuous here. At the time these people lived pretty much everyone was theist in some sense. Its worth noting as the natural sciences have advanced and the notion of being atheist has become acceptable we have seen a steady drop in theist scientists and intellectuals.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey guys, I just thought of something interesting.

WP is making the argument that a flying corpse is unlikely, but a flying corpse IF a skydaddy exists is more likely. IF a skydaddy exists.

But we shouldn't calculate the probability of X being true IF Y is true. We should calculate the probability of X being true AND Y being true.

Simple mathematics. I'll first relay my argument with a simple example, and then apply it to the miracles issue.

If you go to the store, you are 40% likely to be able to find and buy a Lindor chocolate bar.

A gift basket is 50% likely to contain a Lindor chocolate bar.

You are 50% likely to be given a gift basket.

So, the probability that you obtain a Lindor NOT contingent on a gift basket is 40%

The probability that you obtain a Lindor IF you obtain a gift basket is 50%

But the relevant figure is that the probability that you obtain a gift basket AND it has a Lindor bar in it is 25%. Lower than the standalone probability of a Lindor Bar not contingent on a gift basket.

If you stack sequences of uncertain claims and make the last one contingent on the previous one, the probability of the entire stack being true is decreased, not increased.

The probability that a corpse flew IF God exists is higher than if God didn't exist, but the probability that God exists AND that he caused a corpse to fly is lower than a corpse's spontaneous flight.

Remember your 4th grade maths: If you want to calculate the probability that something happened OR something else happened, you add the fractions resulting in a higher probability. If you want to calculate the probability that something happened AND something else happened as well, you multiply the factions, resulting in a lower number.

I am not mathematically talented, but it seems to me that your argument, above, applies to correlations, not causations. There is, for instance, nothing about a gift basket that necessitates a Lindor chocolate bar. There is nothing in the chocolate bar that requires it's presence in a gift basket; the presence of both together is the result of action by a third party; neither suffers from the lack of the other.

However, the argument (as I saw it, anyway) is that resurrection is only possible IF there is a God...a causal relationship, not just a correlative one. This puts your argument regarding probabilities into the proverbial cocked hat.

What you are saying about causality is accurate but incidental, and it has no impact on my argument. The probability of all events in a causal chain occurring is calculated in the exact same way as the probability of multiple correlative or even independent events all happening.

If probability of X is 20% and probability of independent event Y is 30%, the probability of X AND Y happening is 20% x 30% = 6%

If probability of X is 20% and probability of X causing Y is 30%, the probability of X happening AND of X causing Y is ALSO 20% x 30% = 6%. Causality or lack therefore has no bearing on the calculation of probabilities.

Let me try to explain in more detail.

I'm going to pick a number at random for the sake of argument. Let's say that the probability that God exists is 20% (0.2).

Let's say that IF God exists, the probability that he caused Jesus's resurrection is 30% (0.3 - again, number chosen totally arbitrarily just to illustrate the argument).

So the probability that God exists AND that he caused Jesus's resurrection is 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.06. Namely 6%.

The fact that there is causation, as opposed to just correlation does not affect the argument in the slightest.

And it actually gets better (or worse, from your prospective)

Most Christians believe that it's true that God caused the Resurrection but that it's not true that he caused Mohammed's ascension on a flying horse.

Let's say that IF God exists, the probability that he caused Mohammed's ascension is 20%. If so, the probability that he DIDN'T cause Mohammed's ascension is 80%.

Therefore the probability that God exists AND he caused Jesus's resurrection AND he did NOT cause Mohammed's ascension is calculated thus: 0.2 x 0.3 x 0.8 = 0.48 = 4.2%

Let's say the probability that IF God exists, he also inspired Joseph Smith to write the Book of Mormon is 50%. If so, the probability that he DIDN'T inspire Smith is 50% (again, picking numbers at random).

Therefore, the probability that God exists AND, he caused Jesus's resurrection AND he did NOT cause Mohamed's ascension and he did NOT inspire Joseph Smith is calculated thus: 0.2 x 0.3 x 0.8 x 0.5 = 0.024 = 2.4%

Also, we should mention that God might exists, but he could be one of several Gods. Let's say that IF any Gods exists at all, the probability that there are at least two, is 75%. That would mean that the probability that there is only one God is 25%.

So the probability that a God exists AND that he is the only existing God AND that he caused Jesus's resurrection AND that he didn't cause Mohammed's ascension AND that he didn't inspire Joseph Smith is calculated thus: 0.2 x 0.25 x 0.3 x 0.8 x 0.5 = 0.006 = 0.6%

What am I trying to illustrate here? Simply that it's mathematically inevitable that the more details you add to your belief system for which the probability of truth is not 100%, the more and more unlikely does it become that your entire belief system is accurate.

I'm trying to counter the argument that if God exists, then the resurrection is more likely. Sure. IF. But the probability that God exists is very small, and the probability that if he did exist is also very small. Therefore, the probability that he does exit AND he caused the resurrection is very VERY small.

And just so you know, terming such as 'flying corpses' is not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of resurrection is that the person experiencing it is ALIVE. Not 'undead,' or 'zombie,' or walking/flying corpses.

Excuse me Diana, but as the husband of a doctor who has invested a fortune in her medical studies, and puts her heart and soul into doing nothing but saving lives day in day out, I find it TREMENDOUSLY OFFENSIVE that you would allege that corpses can come back to life. Terms such as "the Resurrected Body of Christ" are not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of modern medicine is that a person that is dead cannot come back to life.

So you may continue to describe these events as 'walking/flying corpses' if you want to...but you need to be aware that doing so is an extremely inaccurate, as well as uncivil, way of presenting the doctrines and beliefs of those who believe in resurrection.

One of my New Year's resolutions is to try to be a little more civil on this forum, So let's make a deal:

When talking about the claims of the Bible, I will refer to them in ways such as "The Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", in deference to your beliefs in Christianity, if you agree to refer to the same event as "a decomposing corpse undergoing a physically impossible reversal of the denaturing of enzymes in its brain, and inverting the gravitational interaction between itself and planet earth" in deference to my beliefs in modern medicine and in the law of gravity.

I mean, come on! You believe that a corpse became not a corpse, and that it went up into the air without being propelled by anything like a jetpack or a catapult or a trampoline, right? Stripped of its flourish and pomp, that is what you believe happened, isn't it? Close your eyes and picture the step by step sequence of events. A decomposing corpse became a living person, and after some other activities in town, it moved away from the ground and towards the sky unaided by man-made machinery. That is a fair way of describing the sequence of events in a neutral and unbiased way, right?

I think it's perfectly legitimate for you to describe this alleged sequence of events using language that also brings across the awe and deference you feel for this story. But it's equally legitimate for me to describe this alleged event using language that also brings across the skepticism and disbelief that I feel for the story.

It's the Resurrection and Ascension of your Savior to you, it's a silly fairy tale of a flying zombie to me.

I don't think that on a practical level, there's any chance of confusion. You'll know what I'm referring to when I use my preferred terminology and vice versa. We understand what we mean for the most part, and we just have to find a way to look past the fact that our respective preferred terminology for the same event is offensive to the other.

I'd be happy to adopt your language as a gesture of respect to you, if you agree to reciprocate. Either that, or let's both stick to our own language to describe the same alleged events, and find it in us to live and let live.

But surely, it would be unfair for me to force you to use my terminology which is offensive to you - without reciprocating, and it would be unfair for you to expect me to use your terminology which is very offensive to me - without reciprocating.

[no evidence no belief]

The majority of great thinkers, philosophers and scientists throughout history have been Christian and have professed belief in God.

Wow really? This is quite a claim. I mean "the belief in God" part I can buy, but the "have been Christian" part I can't.

I doubt that any non-Christian would ever agree to your claim. And I wouldn't be certain that all Christians would either.

Correct, but of course it isn't a matter of whether some one agrees or not. It is a matter of proof or documentation. He has given none, nor has he defined 'great thinkers.' He also has not given a time frame. Certainly 100% of the 'great thinkers' were not Christian before the Christian era.

Well, at the time when I wrote that I had a few major names in mind: Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Decartes, Boethius, Boyal, Spinosa, Faraday and many more. Again, those were just the few that popped into my head. All these individuals are some of the greatest thinkers, scientists and philosophers of all time and they all professed belief in God. My point was to refute the absurd atheist notion that theists will 'believe absolutely anything' and are 'gulliable' and 'stupid' because the world's most enlightened and intelligent people were believers.

Well, I agree that it's absurd to claim that "theists are gullible and stupid, and will believe absolutely anything", and as long as we are not responding to anything any active user on this thread has ever said, but rather making preemptive strikes against the imaginary claims of imaginary opponents, I would like to come on the record and express strong disagreement with the notion that atheists are secretly satanists who chop up and eat babies.

Now, to go back to your argument from authority, here's why it's absolutely meaningless to cite "wise" or "smart" people from different eras who share your belief, in support for the validity of the belief itself: I could give you a long list of very wise, intelligent, enlightened, distinguished, respected historical figures who would LAUGH IN YOUR FACE if you dared to say that women should have the right to vote. I could give you a list of acclaimed historical figures who had no problem with slavery. Ditto the notion that the earth is flat. Ditto the notion that black people are only 3/5 human. Sometimes smart people are nonetheless children of their times, and believe wrong things.

Besides, if we're wasting time making arguments from authority, you can drop a few names from centuries ago, and I can quote a 2002 article by Paul Bell on Mensa Magazine (the society for individuals with a high IQ) which mentions a meta-analysis of various papers that have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. Or a similar 2013 meta analysis which netted the same results. Or I could bring to your attention the proportion of atheists to theists among Nobel Prize winners in the sciences. Two can play at this game. OR, we could examine the claims on their merits.

[johnmarc]

But if all you want is the titillation and irritation value, and don't care about accurately presenting the beliefs you are arguing against, go ahead. You won't be arguing against any belief anybody actually holds, but hey......free speech and all that.

I guess I am confused here. I am under the assumption that at the moment an individual is actually dead, decomposing begins. After minutes everything is irreversible and after days the body is the host of a myriad of unpleasant organisms. After burial (certainly in ancient times) well...the whole thing was stored well away from town for a reason. Are these the facts that you call titillation and irritation? The Bible claims that folks rose from their graves. Science (and myself) are confused. Just exactly WHAT are you calling these corpses if they are not corpses?

I am a Christian (moderate Presbyterian) and I am claiming flatly that no one has ever been clinically dead for more than a few minutes and then 'resurrected'. Not anyone in a grave---three days or otherwise.

[dianaiad]

Hey guys, I just thought of something interesting.

WP is making the argument that a flying corpse is unlikely, but a flying corpse IF a skydaddy exists is more likely. IF a skydaddy exists.

But we shouldn't calculate the probability of X being true IF Y is true. We should calculate the probability of X being true AND Y being true.

Simple mathematics. I'll first relay my argument with a simple example, and then apply it to the miracles issue.

If you go to the store, you are 40% likely to be able to find and buy a Lindor chocolate bar.

A gift basket is 50% likely to contain a Lindor chocolate bar.

You are 50% likely to be given a gift basket.

So, the probability that you obtain a Lindor NOT contingent on a gift basket is 40%

The probability that you obtain a Lindor IF you obtain a gift basket is 50%

But the relevant figure is that the probability that you obtain a gift basket AND it has a Lindor bar in it is 25%. Lower than the standalone probability of a Lindor Bar not contingent on a gift basket.

If you stack sequences of uncertain claims and make the last one contingent on the previous one, the probability of the entire stack being true is decreased, not increased.

The probability that a corpse flew IF God exists is higher than if God didn't exist, but the probability that God exists AND that he caused a corpse to fly is lower than a corpse's spontaneous flight.

Remember your 4th grade maths: If you want to calculate the probability that something happened OR something else happened, you add the fractions resulting in a higher probability. If you want to calculate the probability that something happened AND something else happened as well, you multiply the factions, resulting in a lower number.

I am not mathematically talented, but it seems to me that your argument, above, applies to correlations, not causations. There is, for instance, nothing about a gift basket that necessitates a Lindor chocolate bar. There is nothing in the chocolate bar that requires it's presence in a gift basket; the presence of both together is the result of action by a third party; neither suffers from the lack of the other.

However, the argument (as I saw it, anyway) is that resurrection is only possible IF there is a God...a causal relationship, not just a correlative one. This puts your argument regarding probabilities into the proverbial cocked hat.

What you are saying about causality is accurate but incidental, and it has no impact on my argument. The probability of all events in a causal chain occurring is calculated in the exact same way as the probability of multiple correlative or even independent events all happening.

If probability of X is 20% and probability of independent event Y is 30%, the probability of X AND Y happening is 20% x 30% = 6%

If probability of X is 20% and probability of X causing Y is 30%, the probability of X happening AND of X causing Y is ALSO 20% x 30% = 6%. Causality or lack therefore has no bearing on the calculation of probabilities.

Let me try to explain in more detail.

I'm going to pick a number at random for the sake of argument. Let's say that the probability that God exists is 20% (0.2).

Let's say that IF God exists, the probability that he caused Jesus's resurrection is 30% (0.3 - again, number chosen totally arbitrarily just to illustrate the argument).

So the probability that God exists AND that he caused Jesus's resurrection is 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.06. Namely 6%.

The fact that there is causation, as opposed to just correlation does not affect the argument in the slightest.

And it actually gets better (or worse, from your prospective)

Most Christians believe that it's true that God caused the Resurrection but that it's not true that he caused Mohammed's ascension on a flying horse.

Let's say that IF God exists, the probability that he caused Mohammed's ascension is 20%. If so, the probability that he DIDN'T cause Mohammed's ascension is 80%.

Therefore the probability that God exists AND he caused Jesus's resurrection AND he did NOT cause Mohammed's ascension is calculated thus: 0.2 x 0.3 x 0.8 = 0.48 = 4.2%

Let's say the probability that IF God exists, he also inspired Joseph Smith to write the Book of Mormon is 50%. If so, the probability that he DIDN'T inspire Smith is 50% (again, picking numbers at random).

Therefore, the probability that God exists AND, he caused Jesus's resurrection AND he did NOT cause Mohamed's ascension and he did NOT inspire Joseph Smith is calculated thus: 0.2 x 0.3 x 0.8 x 0.5 = 0.024 = 2.4%

Also, we should mention that God might exists, but he could be one of several Gods. Let's say that IF any Gods exists at all, the probability that there are at least two, is 75%. That would mean that the probability that there is only one God is 25%.

So the probability that a God exists AND that he is the only existing God AND that he caused Jesus's resurrection AND that he didn't cause Mohammed's ascension AND that he didn't inspire Joseph Smith is calculated thus: 0.2 x 0.25 x 0.3 x 0.8 x 0.5 = 0.006 = 0.6%

What am I trying to illustrate here? Simply that it's mathematically inevitable that the more details you add to your belief system for which the probability of truth is not 100%, the more and more unlikely does it become that your entire belief system is accurate.

I'm trying to counter the argument that if God exists, then the resurrection is more likely. Sure. IF. But the probability that God exists is very small, and the probability that if he did exist is also very small. Therefore, the probability that he does exit AND he caused the resurrection is very VERY small.

And just so you know, terming such as 'flying corpses' is not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of resurrection is that the person experiencing it is ALIVE. Not 'undead,' or 'zombie,' or walking/flying corpses.

Excuse me Diana, but as the husband of a doctor who has invested a fortune in her medical studies, and puts her heart and soul into doing nothing but saving lives day in day out, I find it TREMENDOUSLY OFFENSIVE that you would allege that corpses can come back to life. Terms such as "the Resurrected Body of Christ" are not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of modern medicine is that a person that is dead cannot come back to life.

So you may continue to describe these events as 'walking/flying corpses' if you want to...but you need to be aware that doing so is an extremely inaccurate, as well as uncivil, way of presenting the doctrines and beliefs of those who believe in resurrection.

One of my New Year's resolutions is to try to be a little more civil on this forum, So let's make a deal:

When talking about the claims of the Bible, I will refer to them in ways such as "The Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", in deference to your beliefs in Christianity, if you agree to refer to the same event as "a decomposing corpse undergoing a physically impossible reversal of the denaturing of enzymes in its brain, and inverting the gravitational interaction between itself and planet earth" in deference to my beliefs in modern medicine and in the law of gravity.

But that would be an inaccurate description of my beliefs regarding what resurrection is, so....sorry, no. As I mentioned before, the perception of most believers in resurrection figure that the resurrected body is alive, healthy, 'incorruptable' (that's biblical) and a fit and permanent home for the spirit that left your corpse behind. If we believed in a literal transformation of the decaying corpse, then all those sailors who were buried at sea, all those whose bodies have decayed past any hope of discovery, who were destroyed in whatever manner.....they would all be out of luck, would they not? Yet the doctrines all (as far as I am aware, anyway) promise resurrection for everybody, no matter what happened to the earthly corpse.

You mention being insulted because your wife is a doctor.....my goodness; the entire goal of medicine is to hold back death, make the unhealthy healthy again--and modern medicine routinely 'brings back' people who would have been pronounced unrecoverably dead a century ago.

.........and that is not the same as resurrection, btw.

I do not ask that you refer to this in the terms you propose; just refer to it accurately, in light of what is really believed about resurrection, not your twisted and inaccurate version of it.

What we (most of us) believe is more akin to....oh...taking the spirit of Dolly (remember Dolly the sheep?) after her physical death, and putting it back into her cloned, perfected body. One that has all the genetic kinks gone (including the ones that seem to program death).

That's not the best of analogies either, but it's a lot closer than your 'flying corpses.'

As to your math....

Someone once did the calculations upon the probability of life appearing on a planet, and evolving into sentience that can examine the probabilities of its own existence: the Drake equation, which produces wildly variable responses, from a million civilizations in the galaxy to just one or two........maybe.

But nobody can say that the probability of finding intelligent life in the universe is zero, because, well, here we are..........making the probability 100%

and someone, eventually, wins the lottery.

Basically, probabilities ARE just math; do you know what the odds are of someone getting Multiple Myeloma are? .67%........about the same as the final probabilities you have been tossing around.

But for those who actually GET it, the probability is 100%.

Basically, then, it doesn't matter what the probabilities are that there is a god (how would you figure those, anyway?)....that's a binary set. Either there is one or there isn't. All probability figures have to be based on one or the other premise, not both.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Final Warning

juvenile, unintelligent [...] no evidence no belief's juvenile and immature debating style.

This post is a blatant personal attack, and far from the first in this thread to be noted.

Well, in my opinion this would be the fault of the forum administrators and moderators for not rebuking and warning [...]

You're welcome to such an opinion, but the rules of the forum dictate that you should not publicly express it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

But if all you want is the titillation and irritation value, and don't care about accurately presenting the beliefs you are arguing against, go ahead. You won't be arguing against any belief anybody actually holds, but hey......free speech and all that.

I guess I am confused here. I am under the assumption that at the moment an individual is actually dead, decomposing begins. After minutes everything is irreversible and after days the body is the host of a myriad of unpleasant organisms. After burial (certainly in ancient times) well...the whole thing was stored well away from town for a reason. Are these the facts that you call titillation and irritation? The Bible claims that folks rose from their graves. Science (and myself) are confused. Just exactly WHAT are you calling these corpses if they are not corpses?

I am a Christian (moderate Presbyterian) and I am claiming flatly that no one has ever been clinically dead for more than a few minutes and then 'resurrected'. Not anyone in a grave---three days or otherwise.

You are talking about two different things here. Resurrection...as most people think of it...does NOT involve reanimating corpses. It involves the spirit getting a new, incorruptible body, based perhaps on the 'pattern' of the old one, but utterly new, healthy....

The above is pretty much doctrine, and is mentioned in the NT.

My personal opinion is that, just as science is discovering the awesome wonder that we are made of star stuff produced in the heart of supernovas......that we are, quite literally, recycled stars ourselves, that it isn't exactly outrageous to figure that, when available, our old bodies might provide some 'star stuff' for the new ones. That can't be the usual method of resurrection, however, since according to the NT, we are ALL going to be resurrected, all who have ever lived on earth.

Since the VAST majority of us leave behind bodies that are absolutely GONE, from bone to skin fragments, it's hard to figure that resurrection requires any part of a corpse.

Which makes referring to resurrected beings as 'flying corpses' an inaccurate description of what the beliefs are.

[Danmark]

[answering johnmarc]
You are talking about two different things here. Resurrection...as most people think of it...does NOT involve reanimating corpses. It involves the spirit getting a new, incorruptible body, based perhaps on the 'pattern' of the old one, but utterly new, healthy....

The above is pretty much doctrine, and is mentioned in the NT.
....
Since the VAST majority of us leave behind bodies that are absolutely GONE, from bone to skin fragments, it's hard to figure that resurrection requires any part of a corpse.

Which makes referring to resurrected beings as 'flying corpses' an inaccurate description of what the beliefs are.

Are you referencing 1 Corinthians 15:35-49? If so, won't you agree it is rather confusing, or at least confusing if you take this 'new body' to be an actual physical body? In the latter part of that passage, Paul seems to distinguish a 'body' from a 'spirit.' Let's look at verses 44 - 47:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
The first, the body, is material; the second, the new 'body' is spiritual. According to Paul it is made from 'heavenly' stuff. [perhaps your 'star' stuff in your personal theory] This spiritual 'body' is not a body at all. It is not material, it is spiritual. Thus, it would not matter how dissolved and scattered and it was, it can be reassembled as a spirit quite easily.

But this seems to contradict the very word 'resurrection' itself. This is not a rising up, or a new birth, it is a transformation. Perhaps some of our Greek scholars on the forum can assist here. Parenthetically this transformation must be different than the 'transfiguration,' since whatever it was that happened to Jesus in the 'transfiguration' did not result in a body impervious to death. This only increases the confusion.

At any rate, this whole area of 'resurrection' seems sufficiently muddled that altho' "flying corpse" may be irreverent or offensive, it does not seem to be necessarily wrong by the standard set by Paul. I say this because Paul himself combines contradictory terms when he refers to a "spiritual body."