Pash--
I get fired up about certain things, too. It's all part of what we do here.
You're right that some of it's flimsy, but no more so than faith. Perhaps less. What I'm after with curare and the flimsy "Carribean molecule" is that substances do exist which create the illusion of a deathlike state. One can perform surgery using curare; it does nothing to reduce the pain, but it keeps the patient dead-still. I find it curious that your opinion reflects that the possibility that the "witnesses" and those who heard the subsequents story--and thus assigned it value--could have been, at some point, mistaken? Our modern doctors have made such mistakes in the recent past, so that people awaken in body bags or while being placed in refrigeration.
And, yes, I do believe it reasonable to consider various relationships between head trauma and restored faculty. Speech and hearing ... depression, too.
You seem to dislike literary precedents. Each taken on its own means little. But when we consider that much of the Bible reflects preexisting tales and ideas from cultures that "got it wrong", one must wonder how much of what we take on faith is genuine. The Creation tale reflects other traditions; so does the Great Flood; the crucifixion has some precedent, as well. That Peter's denial has a precedent creates the question of whether the event actually occured, or is just a literary device, and then invites the notion of whether the event occurred as written. These questions are already resolved, as such, so that only one possibility exists in the modern day for Christians--that of faith.
Perhaps explanations seem highly unlikely to you, but I consider one aspect: most Christians I know--by far a clear majority--learned to accept not the possibility of Christ's miracles, but the reality of Christ's miracles before such terms as "reality", "unlikely", or "possible/impossible" bore any real meaning.
Do we believe that princes of India used to fly with "aliens" in zeppelin-like craft to South or Central America? The story exists, has a rich cultural heritage, but do we really believe it, either as an alien story or as a tale of a lost era of India, in which the technology to build and operate zeppelins came and went mysteriously? Or would we be wise to consider Aldous Huxley's observation that many stories exist in India which claim prior achievement to Western accomplishments? Huxley also noted that these tales tend to develop quickly, but only after the Western accomplishment is known in India.
The big problem I'm having is that there are schools of thought, to which I am, admittedly, somewhat sympathetic, that would assert that the "flimsy excuses" we're dealing with come when we write off perfectly explicable (though hardly facile) ideas as "miracles". Now, I don't go that far, but to accept the Bible literally seems unwise to me. As with today, I would not argue with a witness as to what they say they saw; I might take issue with the idea of whether what they saw was what really happened.
But I do think it's flimsy to assert that one is the fulfillment of prophecies that said fulfilling person is aware of. It's called megalomania in its modern extreme. David Koresh, for instance.
If Jesus was an alien love child, though, it would explain a lot.
However, I am considering making the assertion that Elton John is God, and standing on it purely as a faith demonstration. It seems to me that's a more valid form of argumentation for you.
I mean, for one who stands entirely on faith, dismissiveness, and constant inquiry to fuel that dismissiveness, I'm having a hard time throwing ideas out for you. I'm not particularly anxious to write three-hundred page papers on the toxicology of Carribean fauna, or on curare manufacture and implementation, to demonstrate certain points, but apparently you'd like the University Library delivered in defense of suggestions offered to a question you've asked but generally refuse to answer. We can throw out the Carribean fauna if you'd like ... you may not like my perspectives, but you've failed to address the idea of curare. Furthermore, you've dismissed the mysteries of the human brain as insignificant to the vital interpretation of events that, by proxy of the tale involving a human body, must necessarily consider the brain's role in it. Furthermore ....
Well, ok ... see, I get steamed sometimes, too.
You asked our opinions. We answered. I'm sorry you find my particular answer unsatisfying.
But thus far, the only aspect I can get a fix on from your perspective is that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong; maybe y'oughta throw out a couple of your own assertions for your question--it might add dimension to the debate.
Gotta run for now. Truly, I'm sorry my answers don't meet your unspecified par. I guess maybe that means that you should take your own lament to heart and not bother, eh? 'Cause I don't know why you try, 'cause I have no idea what it is you're trying to accomplish.
peace,
Tiassa
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
