|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
But you know little or nothing about the Bible authors' intent. You may know what Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc. believed the authors intended but that's no different than knowing what Tolkien believed about elves. Moby Dick was written as fiction. That was the authors intent. Edited by ringo, : No reason given."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Actually we can. Again from Luke 1:
quote:You can't have eye witnesses to a fictitious event. You can't investigate fiction. Also it isn't as if this Gospel is written in isolation. There are the other Gospels, (this was probably the last one), in circulation as well as the Epistles. Also people don't build social constructs around fictitious writings. Also this is written a thousand years prior to that type of fiction being written. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
You can have fictional eyewitnesses to a fictional event, cited in a fictional account of a fictional event. You can't have eye witnesses to a fictitious event. You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.
GDR writes:
There are other stories about James Bond besides the ones written by Ian Fleming. They don't make James Bond more real.
Also it isn't as if this Gospel is written in isolation. There are the other Gospels, (this was probably the last one), in circulation as well as the Epistles. GDR writes:
Sure they do. May the Fourth be with you (Star Wars), Dungeons and Dragons, etc.
Also people don't build social constructs around fictitious writings. GDR writes:
That's like saying the Wright Brothers didn't have an airplane because it was years before anybody else had one. Also this is written a thousand years prior to that type of fiction being written."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
GDR writes: You can't have eye witnesses to a fictitious event. You can have absolutely totally fictitious accounts from eye witnesses to an event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
You can have fictional eyewitnesses to a fictional event, cited in a fictional account of a fictional event.
In the first place you can as the Bible isn't simply one book. You not only have 4 individual Gospel accounts, there are all of the epistles and their various authors.You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true. Also there is Papius and Polythorpe. Josephus mentions Jesus. Tacitus wrote this after the great fire in Rome in 64AD quote: This is from wiki.quote: At any rate we are both going to believe what we are going to believe. As far as I am concerned the evidence for the resurrection is substantial. There is IMHO no other plausible explanation for the rise of Christianity and the form it took. The basic argument against it is that we know that it can't happen. While, if there is an intelligence responsible for the existence of life then it can happen. A lot depends on one's starting point of theism or materialiam.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And you’ve worked hard at deceiving yourself into thinking that. But until you can explain why the author of Matthew thought that the Disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus there - while the author of Luke insists that they changed their minds and stayed in Jerusalem - because Jesus showed up in person and told them to, your position is considerably weakened. Making the obviously daft claim that it’s like a car accident (unless you mean a car accident when the driver and passengers are so high in drugs they don’t have a clue where they are and what’s really going on) doesn’t cut it with any reasonable person. In a car accident there would at least be broad agreement on where it happened and I don’t see how the first meeting with the resurrected Jesus should get forgotten - so that it only appears in Luke.
quote: Well there are but you don’t like them. And the problems with the Gospel stories at least indicate that the actual post-resurrection events weren’t that memorable.
quote: And there’s the usual strawman. But I suppose you can’t admit to better arguments because you can’t admit to the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is though one really big, plausible and verifiable explanation for the rise of Christianity and the form it took and that is getting adopted as the State Religion by the Super Power of the day. Until that happened Christianity was and remained a very minor fringe cult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
For our purposes here, it is one book. It is one canon, chosen by a group of people as "true". You can expect some agreement among its parts.
In the first place you can as the Bible isn't simply one book. GDR writes:
We're not discussing specifically whether or not the resurrection was real. My objection is to your claim that the Bible stories were "obviously" intended to be understood as real. There is nothing obvious about it. You have admitted yourself that the Bible does contain fiction, which is a direct contradiction of your original claim. As far as I am concerned the evidence for the resurrection is substantial. And you could not have picked a worse example anyway. We do not see stories about resurrections in the news.
GDR writes:
My starting point was theism. A lot depends on one's starting point of theism or materialiam."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
ringo writes: The Bible is the canon we wound up with. There is also the question of what is true. Is the story of the "Good Samaritan" true? There are many parts of the Bible that I don't believe are true such as the case of God either commanding or committing genocide or public stoning. For our purposes here, it is one book. It is one canon, chosen by a group of people as "true". You can expect some agreement among its parts. Everything written is written from some point of view and we come to our own conclusions by doing our best to understand the various writers biases, their sources, and in the case of historical writers the culture, styles of writing and supporting documents from their era. The world of Jesus was far removed from the world of Isaiah and even further removed from the world of Moses.
ringo writes: When I claimed that the Bible didn't contain fiction I was using the definition that in order for it to be fiction, it had to be intended to be understood as neither literally true or as a parable. That was not to say that there aren't accounts in the Bible the are false. I then accepted your idea of what constitutes fiction
We're not discussing specifically whether or not the resurrection was real. My objection is to your claim that the Bible stories were "obviously" intended to be understood as real. There is nothing obvious about it. You have admitted yourself that the Bible does contain fiction, which is a direct contradiction of your original claim. ringo writes: Well no, the whole Christian message is that this was a one off.
And you could not have picked a worse example anyway. We do not see stories about resurrections in the news. ringo writes: My point was a materialist cannot accept belief in resurrection as it is contradictory to their fundamental view of the world. As a theist I can't conclusively prove the historicity of the resurrection, but I can look at what we have and start with the view that it is possible. My starting point was theism.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I think I've already answered that. It's fiction, like the talking snake or the resurrection. The Good Samaritan, however, is plausible where the other two are not - and its message is true.
Is the story of the "Good Samaritan" true? GDR writes:
That's the weakest part of your case. You've sanitized the parts you don't like for no other reason than that you don't like them.
There are many parts of the Bible that I don't believe are true such as the case of God either commanding or committing genocide or public stoning. GDR writes:
That doesn't wash. You know nothing of the authors' intentions. When I claimed that the Bible didn't contain fiction I was using the definition that in order for it to be fiction, it had to be intended to be understood as neither literally true or as a parable."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
ringo writes: I did agree to use your contention that the Good Samaritan is fiction and went with that.
I think I've already answered that. It's fiction, like the talking snake or the resurrection. The Good Samaritan, however, is plausible where the other two are not - and its message is true. ringo writes: By your definition I agree that the snake story is fiction, (as in a metaphor) however I obviously disagree that the resurrection is fiction.
I think I've already answered that. It's fiction, like the talking snake or the resurrection. The Good Samaritan, however, is plausible where the other two are not - and its message is true. ringo writes: You are right that I don't like them but I have reason to reject them. Firstly once again, the Bible isn't simply one book and each book can and should be understood on their own merits. That's the weakest part of your case. You've sanitized the parts you don't like for no other reason than that you don't like them. I start with the belief that God's nature can be seen perfectly embodied by Jesus. So when I look at the accounts of God ordering genocide and public stoning I can see that it is consistently at odds with what we see in the teachings of Jesus, therefore I reject them. People like Bart Ehrman rejected their Christian faith on the grounds that he found that the suffering in the world is inconsistent with a loving god. I have considerable sympathy with that POV however I remain a Christian as I still believe that God has given us the will and the ability to mitigate much of the world's suffering, and that is what we are all called to. I also believe that this life isn't the end and that there is better to come. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: however I obviously disagree that the resurrection is fiction. Which is an unevidenced belief. If you can bear it, this is the more objective version of events described in your book. You'll probably find yourself rebelling against it, but do try. Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story » Internet InfidelsJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: There are many things about that article that I concur with. BTW, I reads and listen to a number of scholars who would agree with Carrier. In the last few days I've listened to and read a considerable amount of what Bart Ehrman has to say. If you can bear it, this is the more objective version of events described in your book. You'll probably find yourself rebelling against it, but do try. I agree that it all is ultimately about belief, however I don't agree that it is unevidenced belief, but I do agree that it isn't conclusive. I don't have a problem agreeing to the point that many of the events around the resurrection don't line up in the Gospels. Even Ehrman agreed that the authors believed in what they wrote, which is not to say they got it right. I realize that there are theories of how Christian belief began without the resurrection being historical. In the end, IMHO, the only truly plausible reason for the rise of Christian belief is "belief" that God bodily raised Jesus into a new or renewed form of physicality. They may have been wrong in their beliefs, but it is hard to conceive of how they could have gotten a major event like that wrong. The specifics of events before and after the crucifixion were written by fallible humans and as a result they won't line up perfectly. That just isn't a problem for me. My Christian beliefs flow from the idea that God is good, that mankind is called to do all that we can to alleviate suffering and that God resurrected Jesus confirming that we can understand God's nature by looking at what we know of the man Jesus. Everything else I believe about my faith flows from that.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: My Christian beliefs flow from the idea that God is good, that mankind is called to do all that we can to alleviate suffering and that God resurrected Jesus confirming that we can understand God's nature by looking at what we know of the man Jesus. Everything else I believe about my faith flows from that. And for the life of me I can't understand how you can believe all that given the utter craziness and total implausibility of the idea. It's baffling.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
My Christian beliefs flow from the idea that God is good, that mankind is called to do all that we can to alleviate suffering and that God resurrected Jesus confirming that we can understand God's nature by looking at what we know of the man Jesus. Everything else I believe about my faith flows from that. All that considering that Trump is viewed as the Second Coming? So very highly demonstrably false!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024