Arthurian Legend

Post Reply New Topic

Arthur was the illegitimate son of Uther Pendragon, king of Britain, and Igraine, the wife of Gorlois of Cornwall.
After the death of Uther, Arthur, who had been reared in secrecy, won acknowledgment as king of Britain by successfully withdrawing a sword from a stone.
Merlin, the court magician, then revealed the new king's parentage. Arthur, reigning in his court at Camelot, proved to be a noble king and a mighty warrior. He was the possessor of the miraculous sword Excalibur, given to him by the mysterious Lady of the Lake.
At Arthur's death Sir Bedivere threw Excalibur into the lake; a hand rose from the water, caught the sword, and disappeared.

This is a brief synopsis of the story that I found on the net, it does not mention the intrigues of Avalon, or his sister. But basically it is a story of the arrival of a saviour and the mystical means by which this occurred

I doubt anyone on this forum would credit this story with even the smallest modicum of voracity, common sense and logical reason would have any right minded person regard this as nonsense.

Yet many (approximatively 50%) on this forum, suspend disbelief to believe this;

The universe has a creator and this creator decided to visit our planet. To do this he impregnated the womb of a virgin with his semen. This virgin gave birth to a son who was the son of the creator and the creator himself. The creator incarnate then traveled what is now known as Israel, performing miracles and upsetting the ruling elite until they got so pissed off they crucified him, this of course was all in the plan, as the pain and suffering the creator felt, were meant to absolve the sins of the beings he had created in his image. Upon his death he survived it and teleported himself back home.

So my question is this; if you believe the second story and yet ridicule the first, Why?

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 20 Jul 2010, 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

To me both are ridiculous. Especially the second.

According to some historians, King Arthur really existed but he wasn't a king, only a Briton warlord who stopped Anglo-Saxon invasion of British islands for a few decades after his victory at Mons Badonicus (ca. 500).

Because the first is sold as LEGEND. The second is sold as being accurate truth. People are given to doubting things that are presented as mythical and legendary. Things presented as fact tend to be accepted as fact by many.

I'm off down Tintagel next week. I'll let you know if I see anything that changes that opinion.

You've misrepresented the second story. "To do this he impregnated the womb of a virgin with his semen." No Christian believes that. "Upon his death he survived it and teleported himself back home." You're being a little bit star trek, aren't you?

The reasons I believe the second story (as it appears in the Bible, rather than atheist disingenuous summaries and parodies) are manifold, but the most important reason is that Jesus revealed Himself to me. "King Arthur" (or whatever long dead warlord he's based on) never revealed himself to me, he's dead. Jesus on the other hand is alive and well.

Mock me if you like, I'm sure you will. I'd post my various proofs of the resurrection, but I suspect you'll just ignore them, which is a shame. If you are genuinely interested in finding out about the archaeology, science and historical proofs (including some phenomenal information about the textual transmission of the Bible, far superior to that of any other ancient text) then I would point you to Josh McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

You should be able to get it from your library if you don't want to cough up any money. What I would say to you is this... if you're going to mock people for their beliefs you ought to really rigorously look into them, rather than absorb the cultural prejudice which surrounds the issues. The tone your summary of the Christian faith took demonstrates that you really have your mind completely set on ridicule, and that's terribly sad.

Awwwrrr! 'ow does catching scimitars tossed by damp tarts make you King of the Britons!!????

ruveyn

VERY mature response, mgran, and thanks!

The mocking language presents a logical trap. Somewhere in there is a question that's not loaded, but it's difficult for many Christians, especially those not really used to discussing their faith with their opponents, to dig down to it.

I wonder if the atheists that put forth the anti-Christian argument in this way are genuinely aware of this fact, or if it's simply a bad habit picked up from memorizing Dawkinsian arguments.

No the point I am making is that many Christians espouse a belief that empirical findings and the scientific method are vital to ones understanding and acceptance of things. They also are able to quite easily use reason and logic to work out if something is a nonsense. Yes my tone is some what mocking, but all I have done it provide a synopsis of the basic belief of the birth, death, and resurrection of a man you for your own reasons believe to be god. You can flower up these events all you want but what I have written is essentially what you believe. So this makes me wonder why people who would otherwise dismiss this story as nonsense instead fervently believe it.

If you have reliable, well founded, peer reviewed, evidence for the resurrection I would love to see it. AG you are probably the most widely read theologian on this site do you know of any, or how about you Orwell, surely you wouldn't believe this story with out evidence?

That was the whole point of the thread and most threads in this forum lately.

The OP was never in the least bit interested in an answer to his question. If that wasn't clear in the first place, it couldn't have been made more clear in his response.


There is no point in explaining your beliefs to someone who thinks he knows more about them than you do.

Dent, that is unfair. I believe the first story and ridicule the second! We all should know that King Arthur exists, as the evidence is irrefutable.

I think you could have avoided "semen" and "teleport", however, those are irrelevant to believability. You are right though, it is important to bring up the issue of consistency, as it does seem difficult to uphold one miraculous claim over all of the others people make. I mean, to be consistent, one either has to say "the world is a land of miracles" or "there are no miracles.


My answer to your question is a qualified yes, there are peer reviewed arguments for the resurrection in certain journals and places. Now, as for "reliable", or "well-founded", those are different matters, as often these cases are made in philosophical journals or by conservative theologians. The case for the resurrection is based upon the New Testament and early Christian tradition, and arguments that it is more probable that Christ resurrected than not. The problem is that there is a problem with constructing a good argument for what really happened, and I wouldn't actually be surprised if this is insoluble, as the trail has gone cold and nobody knows where falsehoods are and where truths really are.

As for mgran's recommendation of "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict", I will admit that I haven't read it. I don't know all of the claims in it. I will admit that it is true that the Bible's transmission is unusually good for a historical, however, at the same time, being unusually good doesn't mean that it is nearly reliable enough for one to make a miracle claim from it. Generally, the strongest argument is from Paul's claim that many people saw a miracle, but I still regard a lot about the Bible to be too questionable for it to be worth holding much credibility to. I mean, as it stands, I think most conservative Christians believe that the factuality of Jesus requires the factuality of a lot of the rest of it, including the OT, and the NT's interpretation of the OT, but those areas are verifiably faulty to a point where it makes it hard to believe that Jesus resurrected, or even if he was, that he represents the Jewish God.

Not so, I am very interested in why people would believe such a story. That I would be told 'because Jesus is present in my heart' was obvious, but I then would like to question that one; considering what we know of the brains ability to reward and hallucinate.

As AG pointed out we either live in a world of supernatural miracle or we don't. Therefore I am interested why people who would otherwise demand empirical evidence or at least be skeptical enough to look for more mundane natural explanations to stories of the supernatural, would accept this one on face value.

AG maybe not semen but certainly one sperm would have been required, unless their is a suggestion that although God needed to use the biological process of a womans womb to birth himself, he did not need to implant one sperm into Marys ovum?

My point is really somewhat epistemic. Either miracles are common enough to be believed at the telling of a tale, or they are so uncommon that anybody who makes the claim simply is more likely a liar regardless of what they say.


Well, why would he need a sperm? You are assuming that God is more dependent on the biological processes than an omnipotent spirit has to be. God could have hypothetically done a lot of things. When you talk about a mystical being of all power, it becomes difficult to create any test or prediction for what they could have done.

I'm not really sure he IS misrepresenting the story. He's taking out the archaic ignorance, and replacing it with words that we today understand. He is injecting parallel concepts and ideas into the blanks that ignorance left open.

Granted it is ONE SPECIFIC set of interpretations.
But If i had to sum up the Jesus story in 1 paragraph, I would have a hard time doing a better job.

Lets also not forget that the current tale of Jesus is derived from books written centuries after his life. Much like Arthur. The story is derived not from all existing works on the topic, but instead a small collection that were the most consistent, despite the fact that consistent isn't a word that should be used. The other works are either destroyed (likely intentionally to kill the ideas held within them) or partially missing, or being concealed... Yes, a few still exist like the Gospel of Barnabas for example... Though in this case, I believe it was because Islam took a liking to that book, thus preserving it.

I was unrealistically hoping to read an honest reply to this... Something other than "I can feel him" or "I just know" something that actually compared evidence, one to one, valuing a given evidence equal on both sides.
I didn't expect a real answer.. but I was hoping to see one.

The reason most of these topics turn into mocking of christianity, is that it is unable to provide anything real and tangible that can be debated outside of mockery.

If theism COULD offer me anything more tangible, it would help me understand more, not only about why people are theists, but about my own Atheism.
Deism has offered some of this, why can't the theists actually give me some real brain candy?

Whanh! I want candy!

Well I am looking at the need for god to use a womb in the first place, this would give the reasonable suggestion that an ovum and and a sperm were also put to use.

More to the point the need to include a woman, who was declared a virgin should throw a whole series of sceptic alarm bells, the most obvious being; in a culture where sex outside of marriage could incur the death penalty, surely it is highly conceivable that this story was hurriedly concocted and the relevant authorities bribed to protect the unfortunate couple who were about to fall foul of the law.

Which brings me back to my original point; Why do people who would otherwise be highly sceptical of a story like this, accept it, and defend it, at face value?

It seems to me you are asking people who reject logical thinking to think logically. If they processed events and feelings the way you do would they believe the things they do? Never having been religious and not been indoctrinated in religious thinking I cannot comprehend how they arrange their mental architecture. The Bible, apparently, is their foundation for comprehending the world. To doubt the Bible means they would have to start from scratch and think out things for themselves. I doubt they are either capable of this or desire it.There are enough people surrounding them that to question the foundations of their social group would be a profoundly uncomfortable exercise. What would motivate them to do that?

A woman can be a "virgin" mother. For a few of them, their hymen is flexible enough to be not torn by a sexual intercourse.

Dent, suggestions are only reasonable if you are reasoning like from like. The issue is that a virgin birth by a God is so entirely unlike anything we've ever seen that we can't infer very much at all about the process, other than inferences that seem justified by theological texts. Honestly, we can't make predictions about what would happen in this kind of narrative.

The rest you say is just fine, I just would urge you to be parsimonious in your assumptions in dealing with this.