Easter Is Coming in 8 Weeks

Quote: zippyboy

And you married her anyway? .

Of course. She doesn't drink or smoke and
she never lies, she doesn't know how. And
yes, I really believe that, she has a thing
about it. She might avoid telling me things,
but if I asked her she would never lie. The
guilt would be too much for her.

One time in Chicago she was undercharged
in an antique shop by $90. We had to turn
around and go all the way back because she was
afraid if she mailed them the money the girl
who made the mistake would be fired and
my wife couldn't handle the guilt of that.

Quote: Evenbob

Of course. She doesn't drink or smoke and
she never lies, she doesn't know how. And
yes, I really believe that, she has a thing about it.

Once you get a reputation as a liar or a thief, it's so hard to overcome that. It's best just to do the right thing all the time, even when you're alone and no one is watching. Even if it's only the Lord who's watching.

See FrGamble? Not everyone needs a centuries-old book to tell them right from wrong. If I were ever to lie, I'd worry more about consequences from colleagues or friends rather than possibility of eternal hellfire promised in the Bible. Losing one's good name IS hellfire to me.

Quote: Evenbob

I love how you make blanket statements
like they are truth. Why, everybody has
god experiences, that's a fact. But it takes
a really wise and experienced person to
point them out to you,

So you are saying you have never felt like there is something more to life, some spiritual connection, or supernatural experience?

Quote: Evenbob

And he must have concluded that the appearances of Jesus to Peter and James were the same as the one to him, because he would not have accepted their "hand of fellowship" (Gal. 2:9) if their understanding of the risen Christ differed from his own (2 Cor. 11:4-6). Indeed Paul was ready to make an outcast of anyone who disagreed with his Christology (Gal. 1:8-9). From this we are led to conclude that Peter and James and the others among the Twelve (strangely not 11 - was Judas a later invention?) had resurrection revelations similar to Paul's, only his was the last. The resurrection stories found later in the gospels could not have been in circulation orally during Paul's career (he died about the year 64 or 67) or the apostles and others would have had a great debate with him when he tried to explain his resurrection theology (see 1 Cor. 15:35-57). Simply put, the first witnesses listed by Paul had not heard of the gospels' resurrection accounts because they had not yet been invented!"

As Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 15:8, his appearance of Christ is different than the Apostles. After his initial conversion Paul is taught by the disciples in Damascus and then heads down to Jerusalem where he meets with Peter. It is here that he receives this "hand of fellowship". Whoever wrote this junk you quoted above makes the illogical and unbiblical assumption that it was Paul who came down to teach the Twelve (apparently the author has not read Acts and the story of Matthias) the real meaning of the Resurrection?!?

Imagine if you will for a moment how ludicrous it would be for the newly converted St. Paul coming to tell St. Peter and the Twelve what they really saw. Instead, it is they who teach Paul the reality of the Resurrection which is what Paul believes and teaches throughout all his letters. The bodily and real resurrection makes perfect sense to a Pharisee as I've already explained to you in an earlier post, in fact a Pharisee would not have accepted a spiritual resurrection. Again it would be helpful if the person you quoted was familiar with the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 23:6-8) or would have read Paul's speech in Athens (Acts 17:22-33).

Quote: FrGamble

So you are saying you have never felt like there is something more to life, some spiritual connection, or supernatural experience?

I feel a connection to everything, but it's
certainly not supernatural. It's everyday,
it's knowing that the universe has been
here forever, you and I have been here
forever, and always will be. It's why Yogi's
sit for twenty years staring at their navel,
trying to get in tune with what we all
know to be true. There is nothing more to
life, this is it. What you see is what you get.
Problem is, most people only see what they
want to see.

Quote: FrGamble

Instead, it is they who teach Paul the reality of the Resurrection .

Ok, why does he never mention most of
it then. What you say makes no sense.
Bible scholars have scratched their heads
over this for hundreds of years. Surely
Paul would have constantly mentioned
that a real live Jesus, in his same old
body, walked and talked and ate and
drank and was touched and examined.
This is real bombshell stuff, yet he ignores
it completely. Because those stories came
later, they hadn't been invented yet.

Quote: Dalex64

A thinking person who rejects god
A thinking person who accepts god as a possibility
A thinking person who selects god as the only reasonable explaination

Which of these people has the most open mind?

Quote: EvenBob

A closed mind is the 3rd choice. Accepting
something without evidence is closing
your mind on the subject.

Quote: FrGamble

Obviously it is option 2 - A thinking person who accepts God as a possibility.

I should have added A thinking person who accepts not-god as a possibility as list item 2.

new list -

A thinking person who rejects god
A thinking person who accepts not-god as a possibility
A thinking person who accepts god as a possibility
A thinking person who selects god as the only reasonable explaination

For me that makes a tie between #2 and #3 for who I think is the most open-minded.

Quote: Dalex64

A thinking person who rejects god
A thinking person who accepts not-god as a possibility
A thinking person who accepts god as a possibility
A thinking person who selects god as the only reasonable explaination

For me that makes a tie between #2 and #3 for who I think is the most open-minded.

There are some problems with your list. Consider this:

A thinking person who rejects Relativity
A thinking person who accepts not-Relativity as a possibility
A thinking person who accepts Relativity as a possibility
A thinking person who selects Relativity as the only reasonable explanation

The acceptance or rejection of a scientific theory is a matter of observation and proof. An open mind does not matter. As there are observations and proofs concerning Relativity, and as the theory can make predictions and can be, and many times must be, applied to concrete real world problems(*), naturally it is accepted.

The problem of God is there are is no proof and no observations. A miracle described or claimed thousands of years ago, which cannot be replicated or corroborated, hardly qualifies.

I'm open to the possibility of deities, including the Judeo-Christian one, provided enough convincing evidence. For that matter I'm open to all possibilities, again provided enough convincing evidence.

I just haven't come across any evidence I'd remotely call conclusive, much less convincing. The openness of a mind does not matter.

(*) Your GPS wouldn't work as well, if the system did not correct for Relativistic effects on time as experienced by the satellites vs time as experienced on Earth. The difference is minuscule, but it affects the insanely accurate atomic clocks on the GPS satellites.

Quote: Evenbob

Ok, why does he never mention most of
it then.

He does mention the Resurrection constantly, forcefully, and with deep passion. Are you complaining or wondering about how he speaks of the Resurrection? He speaks based on his own experiences, the teaching of the Apostles, and through his cultural and intellectual background as a Pharisee. This means he completely agrees with the real bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ as taught to him by the early Church and has personally experienced the living love of Jesus Christ in His appearance to him on the road to Damascus. He writes about the reality of the Resurrection at all times, I beg you to read 1 Cor. 15 again.

Quote: FrGamble

This means he completely agrees with the real bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ as taught to him by the early Church .

You hope. Cause he never mentions a bodily
resurrection or even alludes to it. There are
whole sects of liberal Protestantism that believe
that it was spiritual only, because of what Paul
wrote. I've read what Paul said and it's glaringly
obvious he'd never heard any of the stories
of Jesus in his old body, walking and being
touched and eating and drinking. Those
stories hadn't been invented yet.