Where does the Bible say “celebrate”, out of curiosity, and in what context? I would like to look it up. There are many many priests who successfully live out their vocation. Trust me, I know my own Church.

Qubit,

Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I don’t know how (except that it was done by God), and I don’t know how different the risen body is from the body before death, but that’s the belief. This is different from the kind of resurrection that is supposed to happen to regular people since we see the body of the person decay on Earth. Now, you may think “how convenient that Christians teach that Jesus rose from the dead when there’s virtually no way to prove that he didn’t, yet they also teach that regular people don’t rise from the dead but still get resurrected into some form.” and that’s fine. But that’s the belief, like it or not.

rampant sort of means that it’s happening everywhere, everytime, and, in particular, that most priests do it. which isn’t true. And you have failed to provide stats

I could go into a bit more detail, but it has nothing to do with A Chocolate Jesus.

Unlike Vince and EG, i have no problem with rampant. But systematic is a little harsh. Unless you count that stupid idea of having celibate priests. For one, it’s not Biblical. The Bible says “celebrate”. Expect erratic erotic behavior from the extremely horny.

The first sentence is a bit awkward, but I think I get what you’re saying. Common sense isn’t always correct, as I’m sure you’re well aware. Anyway, I’m saying Jesus wasn’t made up, and I’m not sure how resurrection came up in the discussion. Anyway, the truth is that I can’t prove to you that resurrection happens and you can’t prove to me that resurrection doesn’t happen (That is, as long as resurrection happens “in Heaven”, and not in our universe — assuming, of course, that there is a “spiritual realm” and that the material universe isn’t all there is. But hey, if physicists can advocate the notion of the multiverse, which is directly unobservable — not to mention branes in string theory — I can advocate the notion that there’s a Heaven.)

But, assuming Jesus isn’t imaginary, something happened to him after he died, and after he died a whole bunch of people started preaching that he was resurrected, and died for preaching it.

Resurrection is a belief that Christians have, and you can choose to believe in it or not. But hey, if that French nun, along with her fellow sisters and mothers, are telling the truth, then I guess resurrection does happen.

Have a nice day.

No, Jesus was historical, despite the assertions of a low-rent “documentary” to the contrary.

I would not know I have never seen it Robert. I was taking about the desgin on them stone ossuary’s. These were probably very common in that time.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20070226/160_ap_tomb2_070226.jpg

Armenian cosmic symbols

http://www.armenianhighland.com/images/nkarner/nkar_3814.jpg

Qubit

Anyway, maybe the healing wasn’t a mechanistic process following a new set of physical laws.

Or perhaps God caused the 6 extra dimensions to compactify differently. I don’t know.

“Do you think the deceased Pope John Paul II had a hand in changing the laws of nature to heal this nun of her Parkinson’s? Why or why not?”

If that’s what happened, I don’t think God would have changed the laws of nature. He would have just “disobeyed” the laws of nature and healed her.
Anyway, it’s being investigated, according to the articles.

I don’t know if that’s what happened. But the story sure sounds interesting. I do believe that it’s possible, because, you see, God can do anything not contrary to His nature. Also, if she did get miraculously healed, John Paul II didn’t do it. The nun and the other nuns prayed to him to intercede on their behalf. If there was miraculous healing, it came from God, not the former pope.

Brian and Nick,

I’m not sure about Muslim terrorists. What I do know is that if a government is threatening to kill me because I keep yammering about a guy I met, yet I’m completely making it up, I would say, “Sorry. It was a lie. Please don’t hurt me.” It’s not worth dying for an imaginary friend.

Deep down, those particular Muslims are dying for Muhammad, and I’m sure in every age there were people dying for Muhammad, and I’m sure the first people who died for Muhammad didn’t die for him if they knew he never existed.

Heaven’s Gate.

What if they don’t know it’s a “lie”?

What about Muslim terrorists?

Nor is anybody going to write about guy who lived around Galilea and drew huge crowds of people around him in that region if he knew it was a lie. Nor will people martyr themselves for a lie or write about guys named Peter and Paul who got martyred in Rome (the center of the frickin’ world) for following a guy named Jesus if it was all a lie.

Right. No one is going to make up a guy who says, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus is an imaginary person, who is made up out of several older religions and beliefs of cosmic symbols of life and rebirth.

No, Jesus was historical, despite the assertions of a low-rent “documentary” to the contrary.