Comments on: What we learn from the Cracker Inquisition http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/07/11/what-we-learn-from-the-cracker-inquisition/ The theology of Reality Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:07:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ssjessiechan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/07/11/what-we-learn-from-the-cracker-inquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-1010 ssjessiechan Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:16:08 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=394#comment-1010 Actually Ric, I've heard them play the very same games hypothetically, in order to be truly unable to be contradicted by fact. I unfortunately don't keep track of who says this sort of hogwash, but I've heard it claimed that if a video camera were present at the scene of some biblical miracles (I think this is when Jesus supposedly appeared to his disciples after death, but don't quite remember), that the camera would mysteriously fail too record the event. It was stated quite clearly that evidence for some reason could not be recorded for any miraculous event. Now why would they say this? Why would they feel the need to insist so strongly that something happened, only to say that the only evidence allowed to exist is written in an old book? I'd say it's pretty obviously because they need evidence to be impossible to explain why there is none. Actually Ric, I’ve heard them play the very same games hypothetically, in order to be truly unable to be contradicted by fact. I unfortunately don’t keep track of who says this sort of hogwash, but I’ve heard it claimed that if a video camera were present at the scene of some biblical miracles (I think this is when Jesus supposedly appeared to his disciples after death, but don’t quite remember), that the camera would mysteriously fail too record the event. It was stated quite clearly that evidence for some reason could not be recorded for any miraculous event. Now why would they say this? Why would they feel the need to insist so strongly that something happened, only to say that the only evidence allowed to exist is written in an old book? I’d say it’s pretty obviously because they need evidence to be impossible to explain why there is none.

]]> By: Ric http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/07/11/what-we-learn-from-the-cracker-inquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-984 Ric Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:01:50 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=394#comment-984 You've excellently pointed out an interesting little trick believers pull. I'm sure that Catholics would argue up and down that Jesus did actually rise from the dead-- i.e. that idea at least corresponds to physical reality. They will just pick and choose what truths need to correspond to objective reality and which do not-- and convienently the truths that can't be checked against reality are the ones that are said to correspond to reality most closely. In other words, when you call them on it, that's when the mysterious transubstantiation or spiritual mysteries card is played. Since you can't call them on Jesus' actual resurrection, you can be sure they don't feel the need to play that card. This also indicates of course that they would prefer not to play that card, since it is clear that deep down, they know it's hogwash. You’ve excellently pointed out an interesting little trick believers pull. I’m sure that Catholics would argue up and down that Jesus did actually rise from the dead– i.e. that idea at least corresponds to physical reality. They will just pick and choose what truths need to correspond to objective reality and which do not– and convienently the truths that can’t be checked against reality are the ones that are said to correspond to reality most closely. In other words, when you call them on it, that’s when the mysterious transubstantiation or spiritual mysteries card is played. Since you can’t call them on Jesus’ actual resurrection, you can be sure they don’t feel the need to play that card. This also indicates of course that they would prefer not to play that card, since it is clear that deep down, they know it’s hogwash.

]]> By: Nevyn http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/07/11/what-we-learn-from-the-cracker-inquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-931 Nevyn Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:27:28 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=394#comment-931 "Only the believer’s concept of the cracker changes" Two things strike me in particular regarding this explanation: 1) The cracker is arbitrary. It could be a hogie or a melon ball and serve the same purpose. 2) The priest is an unnecessary intermediate. I should be able to change my concept at any time. “Only the believer’s concept of the cracker changes”
Two things strike me in particular regarding this explanation:
1) The cracker is arbitrary. It could be a hogie or a melon ball and serve the same purpose.
2) The priest is an unnecessary intermediate. I should be able to change my concept at any time.

]]> By: John Morales http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/07/11/what-we-learn-from-the-cracker-inquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-905 John Morales Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:48:31 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=394#comment-905 <i>...he’d pick the lions (or at least feel like a traitor if he broke down and agreed it was not the true body of Christ)</i> Change "at least" to "almost certainly", "if" to "when" and I agree with you :) …he’d pick the lions (or at least feel like a traitor if he broke down and agreed it was not the true body of Christ)

Change “at least” to “almost certainly”, “if” to “when” and I agree with you :)

]]>