Talk:Resurrection

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I would quibble with your definition. I had understood resurrection to be an actual return from death, soul and all, while a zombie was a reanimation of the body. Hamster (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BRAINS! Art Zombie
resurrection does go better in a movie or book title . RUN its AZOMBIE ! Hamster (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Charismatic brbrbrbrbrbrbrlrlrblrblvlrblrblrvlrbl

I became an atheist three days ago. My grandmother (who is a nurse and a charismatic Christian) says that a friend of hers rose from the dead in the first service this morning. I don't believe it.
D E T A I L S :
She had a breathing problem during the service.
She stopped breathing midway through.
She lost her pulse for 5 minutes.
The priest prayed for her to breathe constantly during these 5 minutes.
At the end of the 5 minutes, she started breathing again.
She was hospitalised immediately afterwards.
She had no breathing problem afterwards (they checked in the hospital).
It sounds awfully suspicious to me. Surely this can happen with a rational medical explanation? I don't want to be called a Flat Earth Atheist.— Unsigned, by: 76.204.63.49 / talk / contribs

Ignore it. il'Dictator Mikal 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd say the first thing to do is check that your grandmother actually had her stopwatch out when all this was going on. :-) --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 20:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm more interested to hear about what happened three days ago. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I decided, "Humanity had no religion or god in its earliest stages. All religions are derived from animistic bullshit. Humanity simply transformed the Sun into the all-powerful Creator. Why believe in one?" Wait. Weaseloid is asking about ME? Cool! (The topic starter (76.204.63.49) is my iPad.)
Were the people checking the breathing and pulse trained medically? And was she dehydrated, which can lead to a weak pulse? sterileevolutionist story telling 00:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
First question: Yes. Another RN helped. Second question: I'm not sure. I'll have to ask. UPDATE: No. Her heart stopped entirely, and she was well-hydrated.
Did your grandmother record the priest's mana levels before and after the 5-minute period? 99.50.98.145 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Before: 42. After: 23.— Unsigned, by: 76.204.63.49 / talk / contribs
Ok. To be all rational about this we have to take it step by step.
  1. Did this anecdote actually happen? I am sure that you are aware that the internet is not short of unverifiable stories some of which are pure invention. Please don't take this the wrong way, but a claim from an unknown individual posting as an IP editor about what his grandmother told him happened might not be taken seriously by some.
Yes. She told it to me in person after she got home, and I have now 4 people telling it to me. EddieMonah (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Did it happen as it was claimed to happen. Did the person's heart really stop? Was it really five minutes? Was she taking any special medication? Did she complain of any chest pains as is usual with a heart attack? Did she simply faint?
Yes, yes, yes, no, no, no. EddieMonah (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. What actions did the people around her take? Did anybody try any CPR? Was the only intervention the priest's magical ritual?
People tried CPR. EddieMonah (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
But let's make the improbable assumption that the person was actually "dead" for five minutes and that nobody carried out any CPR and that the only "intervention" was the magical ritual. Are we to then assume that the magical ritual had some connection with the subsequent outcome? Why? Can we reliably repeat this process and test it? Because if we cannot then science has no interest in this anecdote. If it can't be repeated and tested then science isn't interested. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bob makes good points here. I would like to add that every religion has anecdotes that appear to "prove" their case. For example, just the other day a Hindu friend of mine was talking about supposed cases of observed reincarnation. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Observed by whom? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mary was unstable

Making claims like "mary might have been unstable" is sensationalized bs. It is not well founded, nor is it academic. You might gain traction if it were not a throw in, but there is little to contextualize the idea of what it means to have demons tossed out. I truly disagree with finding one thing, some where on the internet, and without any real understanding of that author's points of view, much less an understanding of the religion in general - tossing it in as was done becomes a simple screed against the religion. Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What Keith M. Parsons, Professor of Philosophy writes is a screed, is sensationalized non-academic bs, see The Gospels and Critical History You thought the idea was original to me so you dismissed it in a humiliating way. If you spent a little time checking my source you'd have seen I had paraphrased the opinion of a professor and you'd have been more respectful.

Important lesson in Critical thinking.

  1. Pay more attention to what is written.
  2. Pay less attention to who you think wrote it.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

you are citing to a professor of philo, who seems to suggest (based on his quote) that he does not know when John was written, who wrote it, or what the relationship would have been with Mary or the stories. Proxie, this is not a well founded opinion. I"m sorry, but one guy saying one woman was nuts, and using it simply cause it's good at discrediting a religion is nonsense. especially, as i said, without context. You have a habit of finding one source, one quote, one guy who says something you think sounds wonderfully anti-christian, then you put it in. again, without context, without relevance, and without knowing the full picture. Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 16:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. It's widely believed that people who suffer exorcism are likely to be mentally unstable so the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was mentally unstable is reasonable.
  2. It's generally accepted that John's Gospel was written several decades after the event as YOU YOURSELF WROTE. The quote says no more than what is accepted.
  3. Does anyone know who wrote the Gospels?
  4. The picture Keith M. Parsons, Professor of Philosophy gives is
    1. that the resurrection story is implausible
    2. that this story cannot be an eye witness account since John states that Mary was alone at the time
    3. that Mary was possibly deranged and the way she wasn't surprised by the angels etc looks implausible.
  5. The context is that Parsons claims the gospels are not reliable and this is one example.

Here's my source again, The Gospels and Critical History, so readers can check if they agree with me or with you. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote so readers can check if you were right to take it out repeatedly.

In the Gospel of John we read Mary Magdalene first witnessed the risen Jesus, previously 7 devils had been cast out of her (Luke 8:2[1]) so one may reasonably question her mental stability. Mary was standing alone outside the tomb weeping when she saw 2 angels. Seeing angels did not disturb her, then she saw Jesus and mistook him for a gardener, one does not see resurrected corpses every day. Mary overlooks to mention the angels but asks the ‘gardener’ where the body of Jesus is. [2]
Thus, the only basis for this bizarre story is what John, maybe many years later, recalled as having been said to him by a possibly deranged woman in circumstances that were, to say the very least, highly unusual.
Keith M. Parsons, Professor of Philosophy[3]
  1. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/8.html#2
  2. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/20.html#10
  3. The Gospels and Critical History
Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Godot was right to take it out repeatedly. The resurrection is mentioned in each of the gospels, & the resurrected Jesus was encountered by most of the disciples. We can't just reduce the story to one crazy lady's testimony. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That insufferable Weasel thing must be wrong is right. My edits deal only with Mary Magdalene and I've altered my version to show this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are putting far too much trust in the biblical record Proxima Centauri. Do you really think that it is reliable enough to allow people to make judgements about people's mental health? Given that there are doubts in some quarters about the very existence of Jesus then assuming that the bible is sufficiently accurate when it talks about Mary shows a bit too much faith in the good book.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit] other issues on the Christian Resurrection

We probably should address the fact that several views of Mark suggest that he does not in fact address the Resurrection, and it was a later addition to the his writings. There are several texts, from Ehrman and Crossan specifically, that directly discuss some social-religious (political) theories of why Paul and Mark do not discuss the Resurrection, which would probably make a good addition. Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 15:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus was not the last recorded resurrection

The book of Acts mentions that both Peter and Paul raised people from the dead. — Unsigned, by: Trmyers / talk / contribs

Please cite chapter & verse. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Peter raises Tabitha from the dead: ACTS 9:36-42
Paul raises Eutychus from the dead: ACTS 20:7-12
— Unsigned, by: 98.216.48.2 / talk / contribs
Thanks. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools