Resurrection

[DMB]

As I understand it, "resurrection" in most Christian ideology involves the reuinion of the soul with the body after death. This is supposed to happen after the second coming of Christ and before the Last Judgment.

Here is a lovely painting by Stanley Spencer of the resurrection in the churchyard of Cookham, his home village:

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=13675&searchid=10744&tabview=image

I find the doctrine of resurrection of the body a puzzling one. A lot of Christians seem to think that people continue after death as disembodied souls. So by the time of the general resurrection, a lot of them will have been getting on very well without bodies for thousands of years. Why do they then need bodies? Assuming that their original bodies from the time of death have decayed away, been burnt or otherwise physically transformed, they will presumably need to acquire brand new ones. They can't be made of the original molecules, which will have been recycled many times and perhaps gone to make up other bodies. Shakespeare's Hamlet explains that

A man may fish with a worm that ate of a king, and eat of a fish that fed of that worm...

...a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar

So they really will have to have brand-new bodies. To what purpose? Will they resemble in any respect the bodies they had before? And where these many billions of newly embodied people be placed?

It's all a bit of a puzzle.

[VoxRat]

It is a bit of a puzzle. And I don't know how coherent the various doctrines surrounding it are, even within one sect.

But back when I went to an Episcopal (that's American Anglican) high school, we had to take religion courses, so I imagine I'm at least as familiar as >90% of Episcopalians, if not Anglicans in general, with Official Church Teachings on the matter.

There was never any serious attention given to the idea of reuniting with a physical body. Whatever happened to one's "self" - or soul, or whatever - after death was in some realm other than the physical.

[lpetrich]

I recall from somewhere that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a relatively sensible solution to that conundrum: you're kaput until you're resurrected. That also settles rather nicely the conundrum of what a soul without a body is like.

Or does one get a new body when one wakes up in the afterlife? Muslims believe that good Muslims will get super bodies in the Muslim Paradise, ones that will never have a "body age" greater than 30 or so. Men will have super sexual potency, all the better for having sex with their next-world harems. And in Hell, the angels that run the place will give you a new skin each time your skin burns off.

By contrast, the souls in Dante's Heaven have a will-of-the-wisp appearance, though I may be misunderstanding something someplace.

[Daynna]

Two words:

Zombie Apocalypse

At least, that is how I always imagine it. :)

Look at this wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

Read the lines from the Hebrew Bible. I hope to have my zombie defense system perfected before then.

[Goodchild]

As I remember from the religious portion of my life, we believed that souls went to their eternal destination immediately upon death and at the time of the rapture everyone would be given new, perfect bodies.

Which, looking at it now, is a pretty crappy system and I can't imagine why I'd have wanted to spend eternity not being the best looking guy around ;)

[Notta]

As I understand it, "resurrection" in most Christian ideology involves the reuinion of the soul with the body after death. This is supposed to happen after the second coming of Christ and before the Last Judgment.

So they really will have to have brand-new bodies. To what purpose? Will they resemble in any respect the bodies they had before? And where these many billions of newly embodied people be placed?

It's all a bit of a puzzle.There you go again....trying to use logic to understand a religious idea.

My mother-in-law opposed cremation most of her life because she 'needed' her body for resurrection day. Now she's come around to thinking that her 'spiritual body' will be good enough.

Oddly enough, when I was a teenager I wondered if you could eat and have sex in heaven. When I asked a preacher this, he nearly stroked out at the audacity I had to ask about S...E...X and said that our 'heavenly bodies' did not do any of the things our 'earthly' bodies did.

I guess all the newly embodied people are moving towards a new paradise, someplace that makes any earthly paradise look like a cesspool.

[rlogan]

Isn't it interesting how when it comes down to it, they don't know anything.

Do you poop in heaven? I'd hate to give that up.

[DMB]

It is a bit of a puzzle. And I don't know how coherent the various doctrines surrounding it are, even within one sect.

But back when I went to an Episcopal (that's American Anglican) high school, we had to take religion courses, so I imagine I'm at least as familiar as >90% of Episcopalians, if not Anglicans in general, with Official Church Teachings on the matter.

There was never any serious attention given to the idea of reuniting with a physical body. Whatever happened to one's "self" - or soul, or whatever - after death was in some realm other than the physical.

Although I wasn't brought up in any religion, I was indoctrinated in Anglicanism. And I can still rattle off the creed:

I b'lieve in godthefatheralmighty, makerofheavenandearth, and in jesuschristhisonlysonourlord...

and there is definitely one bit that refers to

the resurrection of the body

and that word "resurrection" definitely does not mean the same as "renewal". Why be so definite about "body" as well, if it's not really meant? I suspect this resurrection stuff may be something that the more traditional churches are quietly moving away from as being too embarrassing when one thinks about it.

[Hevvin Machine]

I don't know why people take this sort of thing so seriously. Resurrection is so beyond anybody's ability to comprehend there is just no reason to get your panties in a wad about the details.

Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
Hev

[DMB]

Why believe in stuff you don't comprehend?

[lpetrich]

But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
How is that supposed to be the case?

[Brother Daniel]

But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
How is that supposed to be the case?
It isn't really the case. Statements like this are just a common way of sneering at atheists for daring to imagine that Christian doctrines are actually supposed to mean something.

[Brother Daniel]

Why believe in stuff you don't comprehend?
Not just why, but how: How is it even possible to believe in stuff you don't comprehend?

In practice, much of Christian belief boils down to: I believe that my favourite theologians, whatever they happen to be going on about, must be right. It's like having a sealed envelope and believing that there exists a piece of paper with a true statement inside, without having any idea what is actually written there (if anything). This is not the same as believing the statement itself -- which is impossible if the meaning of the statement hasn't been pinned down for you.

[sohy]

There you go again....trying to use logic to understand a religious idea.



When I was starting to deconvert from evangelical Xianity, I was so excited about finding the truth, that I shared my experience with some of my young Xian friends. One of the girls looked at me puzzled and then said, "You're thinking too much. Stop trying to think so much." That was such an eye opener for me.

Thinking too much is probably what leads to liberal versions of religion as well. Of course even liberal theists have to rely on faith at some point, unless they are atheists that simply like the symbolism and ritual and don't care for the metaphysics.

[VoxRat]

...
and there is definitely one bit that refers to

the resurrection of the body

and that word "resurrection" definitely does not mean the same as "renewal". Why be so definite about "body" as well, if it's not really meant? I suspect this resurrection stuff may be something that the more traditional churches are quietly moving away from as being too embarrassing when one thinks about it.Yeah. I remember that bit too. I think my teachers regarded it as a bit of history; nothing that we were supposed to worry about any more.

... Statements like this are just a common way of sneering at atheists for daring to imagine that Christian doctrines are actually supposed to mean something.Yes, exactly. And I think the Anglican treatment of "resurrection of the body" is a good example. It probably was believed quite literally by the politicians who composed the Nicene creed. But now it just seems like it's a relic. Modern Anglicans seem to treat it as "it doesn't mean literally what it says; it means something. Something all metaphorical and spiritual. I can't tell you what it is; I don't know anyone who can. But whatever it is, it's true! (In some sense.)"

... When I was starting to deconvert from evangelical Xianity, I was so excited about finding the truth, that I shared my experience with some of my young Xian friends. One of the girls looked at me puzzled and then said, "You're thinking too much. Stop trying to think so much." That was such an eye opener for me. ... Right. That's what I could never get comfortable with. I think one can never "think too much". The fundamentalists are frankly anti-intellectual. And I suspect that a lot of the less literal believers aren't so much "thinking too much", but putting too much effort trying to rationalize the irrational. It ends up being pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism.

As always, IMHO, of course.

[Copernicus]

Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.


As a latte-sipping atheist, I have to agree that it is wrong to stereotype people. Nobody should really think you a weirdo without solid evidence.

[Jobar]

One of my few clear memories from my own deconversion, nearly forty years ago, is reading things in the Bible and trying to make sense of them in the light of the world I was learning about in school. Despite the plain contradictions, I kept going over it and over it, thinking that there just had to be a way of looking at things so that both were clearly true. "It must make sense, because everyone tells me it does!"

But then I noticed that some people- some of the writers of the science fiction I read for fun- stated unabashedly that no, the religious part of it did not, and could not, make sense. From there, it didn't take me long to become an open atheist.

[lpetrich]

When I was starting to deconvert from evangelical Xianity, I was so excited about finding the truth, that I shared my experience with some of my young Xian friends. One of the girls looked at me puzzled and then said, "You're thinking too much. Stop trying to think so much." That was such an eye opener for me.
And these are the people who go "Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo! You are calling us irrational! Waaaaaaah!"

Avoiding thinking may help keep them fundies. And it need not be a deliberate policy -- it could be social natural selection.

[Lugubert]

Statements like this are just a common way of sneering at atheists for daring to imagine that Christian doctrines are actually supposed to mean something.
Saved for future use. Thanks.

[Brother Daniel]

I think the Anglican treatment of "resurrection of the body" is a good example. It probably was believed quite literally by the politicians who composed the Nicene creed. But now it just seems like it's a relic. Modern Anglicans seem to treat it as "it doesn't mean literally what it says; it means something. Something all metaphorical and spiritual. I can't tell you what it is; I don't know anyone who can. But whatever it is, it's true! (In some sense.)"
This phenomenon needs a name. I call it "black-box belief".

[Barefoot Bree]

I don't know why people take this sort of thing so seriously. Resurrection is so beyond anybody's ability to comprehend there is just no reason to get your panties in a wad about the details.

Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
Hev

Actually, I know exactly what you mean. Most Christians are not biblical literalists. But it seems that many atheists on the net want the bible to be taken literally, I don't know why. Maybe because it's easier to get a handle on it, easier to laugh at it and reject it. And easier to reject those who really do believe in it literally.

On the other hand, Hev, don't make the same mistake in reverse. Most atheists aren't biblical-should-be-literalists, either.

[Hevvin Machine]

Why believe in stuff you don't comprehend?
Because it works.
Heck, I don't even comprehend my computer much less advanced physics. Why can't an object surpass the speed of light if it keeps getting force applied? I dunno, and I don't much care.

Similarly, my faith works for me and that's what I care about. It brightens my days, gives me hope for the future, and helps me stay focused in living my life the way I think is best. I don't let nonsense like the details of resurrection get in the way of that.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
How is that supposed to be the case? Barefoot Bree summed it up pretty well.

The fact is that most of the Christians that I know don't much care about the age of the earth, the mechanics of Resurrection, or Transubstantiation. The large majority of Christians feel no need to impose their interpretation of The Bible on others.

But I can understand why atheists tend to notice those who do more than us quiet people.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
How is that supposed to be the case?
It isn't really the case. Statements like this are just a common way of sneering at atheists for daring to imagine that Christian doctrines are actually supposed to mean something. Maybe I should have put a smilie at the end of that or something. I didn't mean it as a blanket condemnation of atheists.

The problem I see is that many atheists want to make the Bible into a text book. The many Christians who do also is really the source of the problem, I will agree. But in my experience, the majority of Christians aren't the Literalist caricature that atheists like to sneer at.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.


As a latte-sipping atheist, I have to agree that it is wrong to stereotype people. Nobody should really think you a weirdo without solid evidence.
So far, I rather like SC. Which means I'll probably keep posting here for awhile. Which means you'll probably get more solid evidence than you really want:p
Hev

[DMB]

<Mod Note: posts on literalism/non-literalism and interpretation of the bible moved to a new thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1140).>

[DMB]

Why believe in stuff you don't comprehend?
Because it works.
Heck, I don't even comprehend my computer much less advanced physics. Why can't an object surpass the speed of light if it keeps getting force applied? I dunno, and I don't much care.

Similarly, my faith works for me and that's what I care about. It brightens my days, gives me hope for the future, and helps me stay focused in living my life the way I think is best. I don't let nonsense like the details of resurrection get in the way of that.
Hev

I don't have to believe in my computer or in any particular scientific theory in order to type this now.

You haven't made it clear whether or not you do believe in resurrection or not. Surely in order to believe in something you have to have some understanding of what you are believing. But you have said that resurrection is beyond anyone's ability to comprehend. So I have to ask, does resurrection have a meaning for you?

[Criada]

I'm not a literalist... not even entirely sure how long I will continue to call myself a Christian. But, as I have seen it, it's about a relationship. Loving God, and knowing that He loves me. It's simplistic... but, I've been down the intellectual route, and there are too many road blocks to anything that approaches a coherent and workable approach to life.
I don't believe that it's 'wrong to think', or even wrong to think too much. But you can spend so much time thinking about life that you don't have time to live it.
If God is real, and if He is really God - that is, a being who exists and functions on a higher plane than we humans - then I can't comprehend Him. So I may as well find a working hypothesis and get on with it, rather than worry about whether,or how, He will resurrect my body.
It seems, really, more important to concentrate on the "feed the hungry, clothe the naked" aspect of the thing.
That works, and makes a difference, whether it all turns out to be true or not.
I kind of hope it does, though.

[DMB]

I'm not a literalist... not even entirely sure how long I will continue to call myself a Christian. But, as I have seen it, it's about a relationship. Loving God, and knowing that He loves me. It's simplistic... but, I've been down the intellectual route, and there are too many road blocks to anything that approaches a coherent and workable approach to life.
I don't believe that it's 'wrong to think', or even wrong to think too much. But you can spend so much time thinking about life that you don't have time to live it.
If God is real, and if He is really God - that is, a being who exists and functions on a higher plane than we humans - then I can't comprehend Him. So I may as well find a working hypothesis and get on with it, rather than worry about whether,or how, He will resurrect my body.
It seems, really, more important to concentrate on the "feed the hungry, clothe the naked" aspect of the thing.
That works, and makes a difference, whether it all turns out to be true or not.
I kind of hope it does, though.


Do you say in church that you believe in the resurrection of the body?

[Criada]

Do you say in church that you believe in the resurrection of the body?

No, we don't go for reciting creeds.

[DMB]

Do you say in church that you believe in the resurrection of the body?

No, we don't go for reciting creeds.

Ah. Do you get preaching about afterlife/resurrection?

[Criada]

Ah. Do you get preaching about afterlife/resurrection?

Sometimes. But, to be honest, Christianity as I see it is about what we do in the here and now, how we live and how we affect other people. The afterlife is not really important here and now. Yes, I do believe in the afterlife and in the resurrection. But the details are irrelevant.
We can spend a lot of time talking about things over which we have no control... or we can get on and do the things over which we do have some control.

[DMB]

I think that you have to understand that to non-Christians the whole idea of resurrection is a really murky one.

You clearly feel it's not something to focus on, but you say you do believe in it. Can you explain your beliefs about it?

[Criada]

I'd need to think about that one to answer in any detail! It is pretty murky from this angle too.

The short version, I suppose, is that I believe that Jesus promised eternal life, and that He was raised from the dead. Certainly the bible accounts show that His physical body was raised, He ate after the resurrection, and the disciples touched Him.
The bible also speaks of believers being raised, and of 'incorruptible' bodies. Whether that is a tuned up improved version of the old body, brought back and renovated, or whether it is a completely new body I don't know. There are verses which seem to imply the former, but I haven't studied it in any depth.
If God wants to raise me, He is capable of providing a new body or of repairing the new one, and I guess I will find out one day.
But if you look at what Jesus actually taught, very little of it was concerned with the future, it was about bringing in his kingdom now, where we are.

[VoxRat]

...The short version, I suppose, is that I believe that Jesus promised eternal life, and that He was raised from the dead. Certainly the bible accounts show that His physical body was raised, He ate after the resurrection, and the disciples touched Him.But why do you believe these things?

"Jesus promised eternal life" - what we have is a handful of not entirely consistent and not entirely independent second, third or fourth hand accounts of what someone is supposed to have said. On what basis do you believe they're anything more than wishful thinking, or more credible than what Reverend Moon's followers say about him?

Even if I'm can reasonably verify that Rev. Moon has said the things he's credited with, even if I can verify that he actually believes those things, why would I believe them? Other than just taking a blind leap of faith?

The bible also speaks of believers being raised, and of 'incorruptible' bodies. Whether that is a tuned up improved version of the old body, brought back and renovated, or whether it is a completely new body I don't know. Nor do you know it's not total nonsense, like talking snakes, global floods, talking burning bushes, or virgin births.
There are verses which seem to imply the former, but I haven't studied it in any depth.And why would you? If God wants to raise me, He is capable of providing a new body or of repairing the new one, and I guess I will find out one day.I haven't been able to see statements that "he" exists, let alone what "he" is capable of, are any better supported than Rev. Moon's various pronouncements. And my guess is, No, I won't "find out one day". One day, I will cease to metabolize, and consequently cease to be able to "find out" anything at all. Everything I've seen supports the conclusions that the ability to learn or know or think anything is dependent on nervous system functioning.

But if you look at what Jesus actually taught, very little of it was concerned with the future, it was about bringing in his kingdom now, where we are.First of all, no one knows what "Jesus" actually taught; all you know is what those writers, who the church patriarchs chose to include in the Official Bible, chose to include in their accounts.

I'm not trying to be combative here; I'm just trying to present the rationalist's POV to Christians who - I assume - come to places like this not so much to convert the heathen but to examine their own faith.

When they include remarks like "latte-sipping atheists" in their case, I have to assume that they are pre-emptively dismissing any challenging opinions by creating ridiculous stereotypes of those presenting them, they are poking tongue-in-cheek fun with us at their weaker brethren who feel the need to do that, or they're not sure which of those two options they're exercising.
In any case, it seems like maybe not the best way to present a clear sincere statement of their side of the argument.

(That last bit not directed at you, Criada, but at Mr. Machine)

[Hevvin Machine]

Why believe in stuff you don't comprehend?
Because it works.
Heck, I don't even comprehend my computer much less advanced physics. Why can't an object surpass the speed of light if it keeps getting force applied? I dunno, and I don't much care.

Similarly, my faith works for me and that's what I care about. It brightens my days, gives me hope for the future, and helps me stay focused in living my life the way I think is best. I don't let nonsense like the details of resurrection get in the way of that.
Hev

I don't have to believe in my computer or in any particular scientific theory in order to type this now.
The analogy isn't perfect. Computers and their functions are very simple compared to a human. But the analogy holds in this sense: If you are convinced that this new-fangled technology doesn't work and so never learn basic commands like clicking on icons and "enter"(or even plug the darn thing in), then the computer will just sit there and reaffirm your belief by not hooking you up to the Web. You do need to believe enough to give it a try.


You haven't made it clear whether or not you do believe in resurrection or not. Surely in order to believe in something you have to have some understanding of what you are believing. But you have said that resurrection is beyond anyone's ability to comprehend. So I have to ask, does resurrection have a meaning for you?Oh yes. Resurrection is not like computers in that humans didn't invent it. We know so little about it that I see no point in making strong assertions about it. So, while I have my beliefs I see no reason to make strong assertions about them.
That said, I think that everybody is a Soul. Souls do not die when bodies die. Souls go to God when their body dies. That is Resurrection. I believe in it. The small evidence that exists, like "near death experiences" isn't why I believe. I believe because it works for me. Your mileage may vary.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

If God is real, and if He is really God - that is, a being who exists and functions on a higher plane than we humans - then I can't comprehend Him. So I may as well find a working hypothesis and get on with it, rather than worry about whether,or how, He will resurrect my body.
It seems, really, more important to concentrate on the "feed the hungry, clothe the naked" aspect of the thing.
That works, and makes a difference, whether it all turns out to be true or not.
I kind of hope it does, though.
^^^!
It is all about hope instead of control. Knowledge is about power and control. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's only part of the story. Power and control without hope and love will not result in a good life. People need spiritual nourishment, although they don't need religion to get it. I know atheists who get it in other ways. I also know religionists who have turned religion into a quest for power and control.(all too many in the last few decades:mad:)
Religion is not about getting control over God or explaining the inexplicable. It's about having a better life by getting and staying connected to that which is greater than our individual selves.
Hev

[Criada]

But why do you believe these things?

"Jesus promised eternal life" - what we have is a handful of not entirely consistent and not entirely independent second, third or fourth hand accounts of what someone is supposed to have said. On what basis do you believe they're anything more than wishful thinking, or more credible than what Reverend Moon's followers say about him?

Even if I'm can reasonably verify that Rev. Moon has said the things he's credited with, even if I can verify that he actually believes those things, why would I believe them? Other than just taking a blind leap of faith?



At the moment, I'm probably not the best person to ask this, because I am not sure that I know. But, that is largely due to circumstances, which don't change facts.
If I may, I will try to reply as I would have last year.. maybe I can convince myself if not you!
The thing I have found is that, what Jesus said works. And, that is what matters. I am aware that my experience can't help anyone else, because it is just that, my experience. But that is what I have.
I don't know whether you have read Kierkegaard? His contention that faith must be by virtue of the absurd resonates with me, as does his "leap to faith" ( to, not of, being an important feature).

Nor do you know it's not total nonsense, like talking snakes, global floods, talking burning bushes, or virgin births.
And why would you?

I don't think it's possible to know. To believe and to hope, perhaps to risk the leap and see what happens. But to 'know' in any material sense, no.

I haven't been able to see statements that "he" exists, let alone what "he" is capable of, are any better supported than Rev. Moon's various pronouncements. And my guess is, No, I won't "find out one day". One day, I will cease to metabolize, and consequently cease to be able to "find out" anything at all. Everything I've seen supports the conclusions that the ability to learn or know or think anything is dependent on nervous system functioning.


As I said, faith and knowledge are separate things, and deal with different types of 'reality'. All I can offer is my experience, and that is, obviously, limited to life before death at the moment.

First of all, no one knows what "Jesus" actually taught; all you know is what those writers, who the church patriarchs chose to include in the Official Bible, chose to include in their accounts.

I'm not trying to be combative here; I'm just trying to present the rationalist's POV to Christians who - I assume - come to places like this not so much to convert the heathen but to examine their own faith.

Well, we can disagree on that. It is not going to be possible for me to convince you that a God you don't believe in had anything to do with the writing of a book, which is why I generally avoid using the bible as any kind of authority when talking to non-christians.
And yes, I have no remit to 'convert' anyone, I enjoy discussing the view points of people of all and any belief system.


When they include remarks like "latte-sipping atheists" in their case, I have to assume that they are pre-emptively dismissing any challenging opinions by creating ridiculous stereotypes of those presenting them, they are poking tongue-in-cheek fun with us at their weaker brethren who feel the need to do that, or they're not sure which of those two options they're exercising.
In any case, it seems like maybe not the best way to present a clear sincere statement of their side of the argument.

(That last bit not directed at you, Criada, but at Mr. Machine)

Fair enough, I'll leave that to him to answer :)

[Hevvin Machine]

I'm not trying to be combative here; I'm just trying to present the rationalist's POV to Christians who - I assume - come to places like this not so much to convert the heathen but to examine their own faith.

When they include remarks like "latte-sipping atheists" in their case, I have to assume that they are pre-emptively dismissing any challenging opinions by creating ridiculous stereotypes of those presenting them, they are poking tongue-in-cheek fun with us at their weaker brethren who feel the need to do that, or they're not sure which of those two options they're exercising.
In any case, it seems like maybe not the best way to present a clear sincere statement of their side of the argument.

(That last bit not directed at you, Criada, but at Mr. Machine)
Greetings VoxRat.
There is no "Mr Machine". That'll be "Hev" to your like.:D
With the clarity of hind-sight I realize that I should have put a smilie in there. It did not occur to me that in the context Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. it would be difficult to see the intention. My opinions won't much match anybody's stereotype, whether atheist or religionist or other.
It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the "latte sipping libruls" with whom I am often grouped, no more.
Peace,
Hev

[HinduWoman]

Hev,
if the Bible is the Word of God then surely it should be taken literally?

If you can pick and choose then it is merely another human artefact.

[DMB]

Here is the Bishop of Durham saying the bodily resurrection of Jesus really happened:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6073347.ece

[David B]

The comments are quite interesting.

I don't think the guy quite understands how the followers of cults can continue to believe in them after prophesies fail to happen, and rationalise the failures away. Like the transformative events which were supposed to happen to the well known jailbird, Wayne Bent.

David