|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s a weird thing to say. Are you saying that there is some moral duty to be credulous ? And that a rational skepticism is just an excuse to evade that duty ? There are good reasons to doubt the Empty Tomb story. It may well be a complete fiction. And the story is the only evidence we have of those supposed events. There is nothing worthy of blame in accepting that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: By which you mean that there is no reason not to be credulous?
quote: Credulity is not just a belief, though, and it isn’t always harmless. There is fraud, there are conspiracy theorists - and belief in conspiracy theories was a big factor in the persecution of Jews - up to and including the Holocaust. Trust can be misplaced, you know. Then again, how can we know that God wants us to make leaps of faith rather than make our best efforts to find the truth ? Wouldn’t deciding that in itself take a leap of faith ? And even if we accept that God wants us to make leaps of faith, there is a big difference between making any leap of faith and making particular leaps of faith. Which is it God wants ? And if it is only particular leaps of faith how do we tell the right ones from the wrong ones ?
quote: Believing the Empty Tomb story would come under trusting religion - the only sources that mention it were written to promote a particular religion.
quote: But there are degrees. The Empty Tomb story is less trustworthy than many things that are written.
quote: Which is very, very different from trusting the Empty Tomb story. (And then again I have to ask what “trusting God” really means - I’m not so sure that it is always harmless.)
quote: Signs and wonders could be perceived by non-believers.As for the latter the way I’ve always heard it, if you don’t find evidence it’s because you didn’t believe enough. It really, really looks more like prejudice leading to delusion. And why would anyone want that ? quote: Let’s turn it around: what’s the harm in not doing that ? Why should anyone be blamed for not taking a leap of faith ? And what if you took the wrong leap of faith ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don’t see how objectivity can taint a quest for the truth. In fact a lack of objectivity would seem to be a worse problem. Because of his lack of objectivity “random apologist” is lead into error.
The unknown authors of the Gospels were human. We know that their intent was to promote Christianity. We know that they were reliant on Christian sources. We know that they got some things wrong. We also know that parts appear to be based on OT stories. The Gospels are not good sources even compared to ancient histories. There is a lot more to the doubts than Resurrections don’t happen. A lot more.
quote: Rings was talking about your “Biblical scholars” who certainly weren’t there. But the Gospel writers probably weren’t there either, and definitely were trying to sell Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: My sources are the Bible itself, Bible scholars and historians. Disagreements between the Gospels are enough to tell us that they got some things wrong. The Gospels do not directly identify the authors, nor their sources (although scholars can discern considerable copying of material between Mark, Matthew and Luke - and Luke also uses either Matthew or a common source). The better historians of the time often did identify their sources. We see the author of Matthew taking scriptures out of context in his Nativity story (which disagrees with that of Luke and, by the historical markers seems to be set 10 years earlier) We see drastic differences in the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances, too (Mark stops before reaching the appearances). The Gospels don’t even seem to agree with Paul’s list of appearances (1 Corinthians 15). But instead of being vague why don’t you pick out a point you want to go into depth on ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It’s not just about what experts appear credible. Strobel specialises in throwing softball questions at experts (or sometimes non-experts) who agree with him. He’s not acting as an investigative reporter, he’s promoting a viewpoint - and I suppose there is no harm in reading his books so long as you know that he is only presenting one side and the other (or others) is never going to be given a fair hearing in his work. It’s also about checking what they say - especially online sources. I almost always look up any Bible verses that are cited, sometimes in multiple translations, I’ve checked Josephus and other classical sources (all the famous ones can be found on line, in translation). I’ve even looked up interlinear Bibles to check the original language on occasion. That is one way to tell good sources from bad. I also do that with historical claims. Although I suppose that there are a lot of really bad apologetics in print, so don’t think that print automatically gets a pass. Books I have used are Robin Lane Fox’s The Unauthorised Version and Finkelstein and Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed The Internet Infidel’s Library is not bad but I do not endorse everything in it. Wikipedia is a lot better than you might think - I won’t unreservedly recommend it and it can be sabotaged but it is usually quite good at giving mainstream views. Peter Kirby’s Early Christian Writings and Early Jewish Writings are useful resources. Mainly for the translated texts themselves than the offsite links which are often broken. Other sites of interest are Celsus run by ancient historian Matthew Ferguson. Rarely updated these data but with some interesting stuff. He also has some interesting links in his blog roll (except some are dead). Is That in the Bible seems decent even if the writer is an amateur. NT Blog hasn’t been updated lately, but it’s host, Mark Goodacre, is a genuine Bible scholar. Richard Carrier’s blog is there, too, but it’s a bit of a mixed bag. He can be OK but his Jesus mythicism looks dodgy to me (bad enough that I refuse to buy his book to see if his argument is as bad as it seems) - and his personal life is not a topic I want to look at at all.
quote: That is where the checking comes in. And where examining the arguments comes in too. It is not just a matter of deciding that one is more plausible than the other. It’s about finding out which one really is the best.
quote: I am sure that the Gospel writers had the intent of promoting their religion. But that is different from actually contriving the stories. However, the stories very likely changed over time and the author’s biases will reflect how they present them. Compare, for instance the two stories of Judas’ death. They both depict a tale pleasing to believers (in Matthew 27 Judas is overcome with remorse and kills himself. In Acts 1 Peter says that Judas died mysteriously while inspecting his reward). It’s likely that these two stories were told and believed in Christian communities (and at least one other story existed!) and we can’t say where they came from. But it is obvious that at least one and possibly both are fiction, and their pleasing nature may well have more to do with their survival than any truth they may have had.
quote: At first it was the lack of any good evidence. Now I have a stronger case that the evidence we have is better explained by Jesus remaining dead.
quote: Studying comparative religion (at school) lead me to the realisation that there really wasn’t anything so special about Christianity that put it above the many other religions. Which lead to more questioning and a shortage of good answers. The dishonesty I’ve encountered here even from liberal Christians (who are generally better than fundamentalists) hasn’t exactly changed my mind.
quote: One thing I will say is that I do not go to Christian (or Muslim or Hindu etc etc) forums to argue with them. People who come here - or come to the atheist sites I’ve been on have to expect disagreement and discussion. And why should I not discuss matters I’ve found interesting enough to investigate ? Or why should I not correct false claims - especially on a site which is supposed to be about getting to the truth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024