Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

I believe the Bible as it presents itself just as all true believers have for millennia, and let the scholars entertain themselves with their silly theories.

quote:

---

The credibility of a writer is judged by his writing.

​

C'mon. You can't really believe that? What would the quality of the writing have to do with the credibility of the writer?

---

You really can't judge the writer's honesty, sincerity, integrity, groundedness, grasp of reality, concern with fact etc. from his writing? That is quite a handicap.

quote:

---

Your insistence on objective proof simply means if it's true you'll never find out.

​

And your insistance on the opposite means that if it's false, which is considerably more likely given the spectacular claims of the Bible, you'll never know.

---

Right. Make it impossible to know whether the spectacular claims are true or not by disqualifying spectacular claims a priori. That works.

quote:

---

If you know the Doubting Thomas incident, then you know that Jesus said "blessed are those who did not see and yet believed."

​

Which is exactly what I would write in my book if I were trying to start a religion, too.

---

In other words, all Christians, all the writers of the Bible, and Jesus Himself, are all lying frauds or demented. Well, that does seem to be where your kind of doubt ends up.

quote:

---

Everything you are saying, your cavilings and objections, your demands for proof, are EXACTLY PRECISELY at odds with what Jesus requires of His followers.

​

No shit. If I were trying to get people to swallow these ridiculous fabrications that's exactly what I would tell them, too. "If you want to follow me, and trust me, you do, then you have to do so without proof or evidence of any kind, and in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Don't worry, if you do, you're a better person than all those schmucks who have to have evidence to accept a proposition."

​

I mean, duh. That's the first thing you would tell your followers if you were trying to get them to believe a whole lot of ridiculous lies.

---

Pretty evil people all of us I guess. And Jesus is the most evil of all to have taught us such things.

quote:

---

You despise the transmission of truth by witnesses.

​

I don't despise it; I just know, because its been proven, that eyewitness testitmony is never particularly accurate. Sometimes its hilariously inaccurate.

---

Otherwise known as despising it.

Like much else you may not be aware of the actual facts.Eye witness capabilities and accuracy has been tested many times. The point of the note was that we know that it is unreliable.Why do you wish to attach an emotional term like "despise" to that? It is simply the nature of our cognitive abilities.

quote:

---

Eye witness capabilities and accuracy has been tested many times. The point of the note was that we know that it is unreliable.

---

Unreliable is not "always wrong" and in fact witness testimony is a complex thing you can't just dismiss as if it were totally worthless as you all do.Its being unreliable is why God insisted on many witnesses to establish anything.

quote:

---

Why do you wish to attach an emotional term like "despise" to that? It is simply the nature of our cognitive abilities.

---

To despise is to treat slightingly. The term is accurate.It's also possible our cognitive abilities have deteriorated since Biblical times. There is Biblical reason to think all our faculties have been deteriorating since the Fall.But I'm actually rather amazed at such dogmatic pronouncements you are all willing to make about the "unreliability" of witnesses based on a few tests. Wow.

No of course not always wrong. But when in opposition to other evidence it is not a good idea to let the eye witnesses trump that other evidence. How can you call the "pronouncements" dogmatic if you don't have any idea about the nature of the tests? You attitude is the one that is dogmatic. You are coming to a conclustion, again, without knowing the facts of the matter.Pehaps I am wrong? You have done some study on the various tests that have been done. I've even been a guinea pig in such things and it can be a bit unsettling to realize just how easily you can be wrong.

Look, I'm sure the tests show unreliability of witnesses and I'm also sure there are specifics involved that would take more time than I want to spend on it here. It's really not relevant to the Bible claims which is the only context in which it has come up. There is ONLY witness testimony to Biblical claims. That's the way it is. You believe it or you don't. Knowing the unreliability of some witness testimony in tests would not prove anything in particular about the particular witness reports of the Bible. And again the fact that witnesses are unreliable is why there are so MANY Biblical witnesses.Anyway. On the subject of the many many facts I supposedly have no interest in knowing about (I suspect all that really means is that I reject evolutionism, not facts at all, but anyway) how about starting a thread called "All the Facts Faith needs to know" if you'd really like me to learn some facts, and I'll just ask questions until the facts are very clear to me? I'm quite willing to do this. Everybody can pile on and tell Faith what she needs to know.

And by the way, there's an amazing lack of content to your posts to me, in general actually. All you seem to have to say to me is that I'm wrong. You don't give the facts you say I am lacking, you just accuse me of not knowing what I should know and not wanting to know it and all kinds of unsubstantiated allegations. Isn't that against forum guidelines?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-04-2005 11:56 PM

For many Biblical claims it isn't clear there is even eye witness testimony. I'm thinking particularly of Genesis.In any case there is not ONLY witness testimony. There is other evidence that contradicts what some people interpret the Bible as trying to say. When we have eye witness testimony that contradicts other more firm evidence we have reason to doubt the witnesses a priori from our knowledge of human failability. It was attempted in discussing geology. It seems that you proved to be remarkably resistant to learning much and that was coupled with explanations that I think were less than steller.In the meantime you have already said you will not give up your existing ideas so I don't see that others should waste time going over it. Or have you now decided you might be willing to learn something. There are? Perhaps you would like to give more details. I think that a few 10's of individuals might be all that one could stretch to.The conclusions that are most reasonable to draw from the tests that you don't want to learn about is that even many witnesses can be wrong. In fact there are psychological effects that can force a few correct witnesses to believe something different if they are outnumbered by others.

quote:

---

In any case there is not ONLY witness testimony. There is other evidence that contradicts what some people interpret the Bible as trying to say.

---

As usual you make the allegation and fail to support it with evidence.

quote:

---

When we have eye witness testimony that contradicts other more firm evidence we have reason to doubt the witnesses a priori from our knowledge of human failability.

---

YOu have no eye witness evidence of the events of the Bible that contradicts the Bible's witness. And as usual, again, you fail to offer any in any case.

quote:

---

Everybody can pile on and tell Faith what she needs to know.

​

It was attempted in discussing geology. It seems that you proved to be remarkably resistant to learning much and that was coupled with explanations that I think were less than steller.

---

So you say and you are entitled to your opinion but the way you sling it, it is really nothing but unsubstantiated allegations again, just your subjective impression with nothing to support it. I believe I've learned a great deal and made use of it. You simply dislike how I make use of it.However, it has not been attempted, as you claim. What I am suggesting is a non-debate, just information that I'm explicitly required not to argue with, just learn.{{{{ EDIT: I would also like to point out that you have a habit of speaking of me personally, as if you know my motives personally, instead of sticking to the content of the discussion, and that is also against Forum guidelines I believe, along with making allegations without giving evidence.}}}}

quote:

---

In the meantime you have already said you will not give up your existing ideas so I don't see that others should waste time going over it. Or have you now decided you might be willing to learn something.

---

See, you really have no interest at all in my learning anything. You simply want me to believe in evolution and nothing short of that will be deemed as knowing anything on this site. This is clear in every word you say.

quote:

---

And again the fact that witnesses are unreliable is why there are so MANY Biblical witnesses.

​

There are? Perhaps you would like to give more details. I think that a few 10's of individuals might be all that one could stretch to.

---

Forty separate writers at least, and many people described in the text as witnessing various events. I accept the internal witness evidence too, that 500 saw Jesus after His resurrection for instance, besides the twelve apostles, that millions of Israelites witnessed the miracles of the plagues, the Red Sea, the pillars of cloud and fire and so on. You'll meet them all someday yourself.{Edit: Oh and I forgot to mention the hundreds of thousands of original believers in Christ, and all those who went on believing based on their passing the gospels along. Witnesses in the case of the Bible are all those who believe it and are willing to die for it, not just those who physically saw anything. This would be hard to explain to a person who thinks truth is found only in structured tests.

quote:

---

The conclusions that are most reasonable to draw from the tests that you don't want to learn about is that even many witnesses can be wrong. In fact there are psychological effects that can force a few correct witnesses to believe something different if they are outnumbered by others.

---

Of course many witnesses MAY be wrong, but you and others here draw conclusions FAR beyond that, as if NO witness testimony is of any value at all, and as if many witnesses are not better than one.Tests only test carefully constructed situations, they are artificial and limited, and you make WAY too much of them.And again, your idea that I "don't want to learn" is revealed to be simply your distaste for those who don't share your view of things. You don't respect my way of thinking, I don't respect yours. We are here to debate these ways of thinking. You can't win the debate by simply declaring mine wrong, but that's how most of you here operate. I have to accept your assumptions, your methods, your values because that's the way this place is run. That's stacking the deck, but I just take it as a given here. However, I'm quite willing to absorb all the facts you can offer, and in fact I've been doing so all along.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2005 01:41 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2005 09:01 AM

You mean, do I have ring that casts Zone of Truth as though I were a 18th level Cleric as you apparently do? No.Why would how well you write have anything to do with the truth of a statement? Not only am I handicapped this way, you are, too. Here, lets try it with an experiment. I'll tell you a story, and you tell me which parts are true, and which are not. Since you can apparently read minds, or somehow discern truth from lies from the statements themselves, this should be a cinch. Ready?1) A couple of weekends ago my sister and I ate at an Outback restaraunt. 2) She had the steak and I had a hamburger. 3) The service was slow. 4) She never drinks but I had a beer. 5) When the check came, she insisted on paying. Well, hey. Why don't we come up with a way to discern truth from lies? Well, I already have one. How well is mental telepathy, or whatever it is you do, working these days? How well did it work on my little test above? Isn't that exactly the position you take in regards to the leaders and followers of the world's thousands of other religions? Pot calling the kettle black, seems to me. Or, alternatively, he wasn't the guy that the Bible makes him out to be. Why would he be? What guarantee do we have that the marrative of Jesus in the Bible has anything to do with the real historical Jesus? You know, aside from the claims of the Bible itself, but then, that's exactly what you would expect the Bible to claim if it was trying to put one over on you. Incorrect. Otherwise known as:

quote:

---

I don't despise it; I just know, because its been proven, that eyewitness testitmony is never particularly accurate. Sometimes its hilariously inaccurate.

---

But, you know, define words however you like. I thought we were employing the English language in this discussion, but apparently you're using a language of your own invention, instead.

quote:

---

Why would how well you write have anything to do with the truth of a statement?

---

I thought I answered this. It is not about "HOW WELL" anybody writes.

Well, when you were reading the 'whole translations history' (message 143), you must have covered the Qumran Scrolls (DSS). Happen to notice the translations covering the pesharim? That came from the scrolls, not from some pesky scholar with pet theories. Since Christians laud the DSS as confirming the Bible, guess we will have to pick and choose what parts we use to reinforce our beliefs. Kinda like the 9000--34,000 different Christian groupings.Religions of the world: numbers of adherents; growth ratesEdited to up the numbersThis message has been edited by Nighttrain, 04-05-2005 04:47 AM

quote:

---

Well, when you were reading the 'whole translations history' (message 143), you must have covered the Qumran Scrolls (DSS). Happen to notice the translations covering the pesharim? That came from the scrolls, not from some pesky scholar with pet theories. Since Christians laud the DSS as confirming the Bible, guess we will have to pick and choose what parts we use to reinforce our beliefs. Kinda like the 9000--34,000 different Christian groupings.

---

I did not mean to say that I've read all the scholars on all the peripheral aspects of the subject, only that I've read up on the issues involving the Bible we have. Other writings are not relevant. The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed, as it is just about identical to the Isaiah text we have today.And what's with the nasty tone?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2005 08:57 AM

quote:

---

...I've read up on the issues involving the Bible we have. Other writings are not relevant. The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed, as it is just about identical to the Isaiah text we have today.

---

Can you explain that ? Which changes in Isaiah are you talking about ? When are they thought to have been made ? And when was the Isaiah scroll written ?

quote:

---

You really can't judge the writer's honesty, sincerity, integrity, groundedness, grasp of reality, concern with fact etc. from his writing?

​

You mean, do I have ring that casts Zone of Truth as though I were a 18th level Cleric as you apparently do? No.

---

No, I mean why don't you use your own natural humanity to pay attention to what a writer is saying and how he is saying it.

quote:

---

Not only am I handicapped this way, you are, too. Here, lets try it with an experiment.

---

I am not handicapped in my ability to judge the human qualities of the writers of the gospels. If you are it is only because of your allegiance to a false standard of judgment.

quote:

---

I'll tell you a story, and you tell me which parts are true, and which are not. Since you can apparently read minds, or somehow discern truth from lies from the statements themselves, this should be a cinch. Ready?

​

1) A couple of weekends ago my sister and I ate at an Outback restaraunt. 2) She had the steak and I had a hamburger. 3) The service was slow. 4) She never drinks but I had a beer. 5) When the check came, she insisted on paying.

---

This is too childish for words, Crash. What absolute nonsense. You want a person to draw a conclusion from your artificial little test to a work of reportage of momentous importance? I don't think you are this stupid, so take the time to rethink what you are doing.

quote:

---

Right. Make it impossible to know whether the spectacular claims are true or not by disqualifying spectacular claims a priori. That works.

​

Well, hey. Why don't we come up with a way to discern truth from lies? Well, I already have one. How well is mental telepathy, or whatever it is you do, working these days? How well did it work on my little test above?

---

Don't be silly.

quote:

---

In other words, all Christians, all the writers of the Bible, and Jesus Himself, are all lying frauds or demented.

​

Isn't that exactly the position you take in regards to the leaders and followers of the world's thousands of other religions? Pot calling the kettle black, seems to me.

---

Your judgment has failed you utterly. You have lost track of the discussion and you are wildly slinging false accusations now.

quote:

---

And Jesus is the most evil of all to have taught us such things.

​

Or, alternatively, he wasn't the guy that the Bible makes him out to be.

---

No, this view is not derivable from what you have said. The view that Jesus is evil is derivable from it.

quote:

---

Why would he be? What guarantee do we have that the marrative of Jesus in the Bible has anything to do with the real historical Jesus?

---

Good judgment is guarantee enough.

quote:

---

You know, aside from the claims of the Bible itself, but then, that's exactly what you would expect the Bible to claim if it was trying to put one over on you.

---

I'm sorry, you have taken leave of your senses, as they used to say in a saner time.