Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
279 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 273 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,897 Year: 16,933/19,786 Month: 1,058/2,598 Week: 304/251 Day: 32/43 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1636 of 1677 (847829)
01-27-2019 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1635 by GDR
01-27-2019 8:57 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Any book that is written to represent historical truths can be considered to be evidence.

History does not deal in truths, it deal in facts. What is a historical truth?

Books on the rise and fall of the Roman empire are interesting and might even give us food for thought for our lives today, they don't have the impact of the Quran or the Bible.

So books that deal with and present historical facts that can be corroborated are not as important books that claim to present history, but can be shown to have no corroborating evidence?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1635 by GDR, posted 01-27-2019 8:57 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1637 by GDR, posted 01-27-2019 10:18 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 1645 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 7:12 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1637 of 1677 (847831)
01-27-2019 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1636 by Theodoric
01-27-2019 9:14 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Theodoric writes:

History does not deal in truths, it deal in facts. What is a historical truth?

I am quite sure that there are historical accounts of the Viet Nam war in both Washington and Hanoi. I have a hunch that they won't be in full agreement even though they both present their view of historical accounts.

All historical accounts are prone to human biases and motivations. When read years later we can form our subjective conclusions as to their accuracy.

Theodoric writes:

So books that deal with and present historical facts that can be corroborated are not as important books that claim to present history, but can be shown to have no corroborating evidence?

You are twisting the meaning of what I said. My point is simply that religious texts have a greater effect for good or evil today regardless of corroborating evidence.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1636 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 9:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1639 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 10:35 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1638 of 1677 (847832)
01-27-2019 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1631 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 2:02 PM


Re: Research Delusions
The fact is there is no independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible. All future mentions of this character are tied the gospels. Nowhere else in the historical record does this person exist. The character is as much a myth as Prester John and William Tell.
Even Paul does not seem to have known anything about a historical Jesus. Then again why would he know anything about the gospels as his writings(or maybe more accurately, the writings attributed to him) were written decades before the gospels.
If a document is to be accepted as legitimate historically, then the provenance of the document must be verified. Not only can the provenance of the gospels not be verified, there is no evidence of who even authored them. The conflicts and inconsistencies between them show that nothing in them can be relied on as being factual.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1631 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 2:02 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1651 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-31-2019 9:45 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1639 of 1677 (847833)
01-27-2019 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1637 by GDR
01-27-2019 10:18 PM


Re: Research Delusions
The first part of your response does not even address anything I said.
What are historical "truths"?

Of course different sides will have different I interpretations, but these different versions will in fact corroborate the basic underlying facts. Nothing corroborates your bible.

You are twisting the meaning of what I said

My response is a plain reading of what you stated. If you feel it is twisted maybe you should revisit what you wrote.

My point is simply that religious texts have a greater effect for good or evil today regardless of corroborating evidence

Good and evil is a loaded phrase. Full of judgement. I agree a lot of people put more stock in religious texts. I disagree that that is a good thing also it does not make them more "true".

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1637 by GDR, posted 01-27-2019 10:18 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1640 of 1677 (847846)
01-28-2019 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1623 by GDR
01-26-2019 9:44 PM


Re: Research Delusions
GDR writes:

We know Gollum was a fictional character. The Gospels were clearly meant to be understood as historical.


How they are "meant" or what they purport to be is irrelevant. I have a book that purports to be the "true" biography of James Bond. Jim Hawkins was an eyewitness to the events in Treasure Island. It is common practice in fiction to create elaborate back stories about how the story came to light: one survivor managed to make his way back through the jungle, a message was found in a bottle, etc. Pretending that the story is true doesn't make the story true.

GDR writes:

You can argue that they made it all up for some unknown reason, or that they got it partly, or all wrong, but they are clearly written to be believed as historical.


It doesn't matter what they intended. All that matters is whether or not the material is factual - and there's no reason to think that it is.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1623 by GDR, posted 01-26-2019 9:44 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1641 of 1677 (847847)
01-28-2019 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1625 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 4:56 AM


Re: Research Delusions
Phat writes:

The problem with reading the Bible objectively is that you yourself decide what is and is not possible.


You're 100% wrong. Do you know what "objectively" means at all? You should have said, "The problem with reading the Bible SUBJECTIVELY is that you yourself decide what is and is not possible."

Phat writes:

To be objective, one has to question the intent, experience, and honesty of the original authors.


Maybe that should be part of it - but the most important part of analyzing it objectively is whether or not it matches reality. And since there is no objective evidence that the "Holy Spirit" exists, you can not objectively conclude that the passage is true.

Phat writes:

In contrast, your objectivity taints the quest from the beginning. You would claim that "holy men of God cant be moved by God any more than CS Lewis could be moved by Gollums Ring". You would claim that " Since Resurrections don't happen, (according to the best science we have, ) then the stories were clearly made up."


How is that "tainted"? The conclusions are correct.

Phat writes:

In other words, your objectivity is clearly grounded in what we have in known reality and presupposes that God is fiction and that Jesus is an amalgamation similar to Elmer Gantry.


No. It doesn't "presuppose" any such thing. It concludes that your stories about God and Jesus are fiction.

Phat writes:

Besides....you would claim that God is fiction even before we got to the Upper Room.


Why do you keep repeating that same lie? I have told you more than once that I started out believing. I believed the same nonsense that you believe until I found out that it isn't true.

Phat writes:

So to again answer your question:

ringo writes:

Why would a bunch of goobers who BELIEVE the Bible have an opinion more valuable than somebody who approaches it more objectively?


Because at some point the goobers were there. They recorded what happened. Not what they wanted to happen or were trying to sell.

That doesn't answer the question. The question was in response to your Message 1621, "A random guy in Canada who hangs out at the library has nothing apart from his intuitive wisdom with which to challenge the Biblical scholars."

We're talking about Bible scholars here, not the Bible authors. Why would you trust them more than yourself or myself, especially when you can see that their doctrines don't fit what the Bible actually says?

Phat writes:

And to be fair, you are trying to sell the idea that reality (as understood by humans) trumps belief from day 1.


Reality does trump belief. What part of that do you not understand?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1625 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 4:56 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1642 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-28-2019 11:22 AM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12813
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1642 of 1677 (847848)
01-28-2019 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1641 by ringo
01-28-2019 11:12 AM


Re: Research Delusions
Well then you are simply wrong about reality. Your conclusions are premature.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1641 by ringo, posted 01-28-2019 11:12 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1643 by ringo, posted 01-28-2019 11:39 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1643 of 1677 (847850)
01-28-2019 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1642 by Thugpreacha
01-28-2019 11:22 AM


Re: Research Delusions
Phat writes:

Well then you are simply wrong about reality.


So you admit that your only argument is, "Nuh uh."

Phat writes:

Your conclusions are premature.


What does that mean? No conclusion is ever final. There is always room for new evidence to tweak the conclusion, or even overthrow it completely.

The problem with your conclusion is that it is final. If there was evidence that falsified your conclusion, you still wouldn't let go of it. That's why your opinions on reality don't count for much.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1642 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-28-2019 11:22 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1644 of 1677 (847853)
01-28-2019 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1625 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 4:56 AM


Re: Research Delusions
Because at some point the goobers were there. They recorded what happened.

Not true and I think you know it is not true. You have been on this forum long enough to know that this has been argued ad nauseum. None of the people who wrote down the gospel stories or Paul(and those that pretended they were Paul) were eyewitnesses. That being said Ringo was not talking about that. He was talking about the dishonest and manipulative biblical "scholars". You do realize that the vast majority of biblical "scholars" do not have any higher level education outside of biblical studies. They are not trained as historians or linguists or textual analysts. All they are trained in is apologetics. All fields of scholarship and science are in a constant state of change and flux as new information emerges. Biblical "scholarship" remains rooted in the past with almost no change.

Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling and punctuation


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1625 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 4:56 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1647 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-31-2019 8:54 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 1648 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-31-2019 9:13 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1645 of 1677 (848138)
01-31-2019 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1636 by Theodoric
01-27-2019 9:14 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Replied to wrong post

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1636 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 9:14 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1646 of 1677 (848139)
01-31-2019 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1635 by GDR
01-27-2019 8:57 PM


Re: Research Delusions
I never did get an explanation about what a historical "truth" is. Any chance you could define it and give some examples? I would like to run this whole historical "truth" thing by some people I know that are professionals in the field. See their take, but I have to know what it means.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1635 by GDR, posted 01-27-2019 8:57 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1647 of 1677 (848141)
01-31-2019 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1644 by Theodoric
01-28-2019 12:14 PM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

You do realize that the vast majority of biblical "scholars" do not have any higher level education outside of biblical studies. They are not trained as historians or linguists or textual analysts.

You might want to see the linguistic, stylistic, and grammatical arguments about Paul's letters.

And way back in the 1940s, the vocabulary of Paul's letters were compared to vocabulary used in other Greek documents from different decades.

The Jesus Seminar recently used advanced grammatical, stylistic, syntaxic, vocabulary, etc. analysis to determine that Paul definitely did not write I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, and II Thessalonians.

Daniel Wallace is a fundamentalist and he can read Greek fluently PLUS is an expert on Greek. He addresses the serious matter of the Pastoral Epistles not matching Paul's writing style in any way (including the strange use of Latin prepositions).

The issue of being able to use computer analyses to determine the issues of Pauline authorship has been talked about for many decades.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1644 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2019 12:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1650 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 9:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1648 of 1677 (848143)
01-31-2019 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1644 by Theodoric
01-28-2019 12:14 PM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

None of the people who wrote down the gospel stories or Paul(and those that pretended they were Paul) were eyewitnesses.

I am wondering if you are saying Paul did not exist at all (as opposed to saying there are genuine and pseudo Pauline Epistles)?

Are you saying the all 13 of the Pauline letters (those taken by scholars to be "genuine" and "forged") were not written until 100 A.D., like a few cranks do? Is this some allusion, on your part, to the same cranks who assume that the Pauline theological disputes with the Jewish Christians (like James and/or the various Jewish Christian sects) were all a fake literary invention to make things sound realistic? "Unhistorical conflict" arguments come from the deniers, so is this the meaning tucked in your quote?

I still feel the New Testament documents were generally "early" because they don't quote each other (pretty much every New Testament "scripture" quotation is from the Old Testament), and they mostly don't bear the mark of later supplements to an existing body of (Christian) scripture. They ("they" being the various sides referenced in the arguments and controversies in the New Testament) don't bear the mark of being a fictional invention from a small, connected, unified group of forgers. The evidence FROM THE LATE TEXTS seems to fit an earlier historical situation (albeit with an ongoing post 1st century debate between the various schools and camps), though the (non Pauline Epistle part )New Testament seems to be LATE-first century/early second, and increasingly from a more unified (in theological circles)group of forgers.

(the documents might be late and forged, but the sides referenced seem genuine and from an earlier period)

The "false conflict" argument is really bad (considering the fact that these "Paul/Jesus did not exist" peddlers claim to be, somehow, possessing an advanced historical methodology). Hardly consistent with the results of a decent historical/textual analysis.

The sorely-lacking-decent-scholarship wing of Biblical studies is from the deniers (cranks).

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1644 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2019 12:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1649 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 9:35 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1649 of 1677 (848146)
01-31-2019 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1648 by LamarkNewAge
01-31-2019 9:13 PM


Re: Research Delusions
I just mean what I write. You should not read any more or any less into anything I write.

Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1648 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-31-2019 9:13 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6587
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1650 of 1677 (848147)
01-31-2019 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1647 by LamarkNewAge
01-31-2019 8:54 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Nothing you wrote debunks what I stated. Seemed more like just random statements than an argument.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1647 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-31-2019 8:54 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019