|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Testing The Christian Apologists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If the Bible was supernaturally consistent as Faith claimed then you wouldn’t need spiritual discernment to see it.
quote: And that is the only way to read it that could prove Faith’s point. Spiritual discernment is just a boast to justify twisting the Bible.We know that neither of you have any special capability to see tha truth, just blindness to the text. Faith spent ages arguing that Isaiah 7:14 was only about Jesus (which makes no sense in context and that isn’t even her worst misreading). You, Phat have intentionally left out part of Genesis 3:5, misrepresenting what the serpent said. Not impressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Again, Faith was trying to use this alleged consistency to prove that the a Bible had supernatural origins. If you need some supernatural ability to see that it doesn’t mean what it says to see this consistency it isn’t much of an argument.
quote: Silly misreadings are not evidence if the Spirit. Or even a Lying Spirit (although the latter is at least a little less implausible).
quote: You can be a fool he thinks he can get away with obvious misrepresentation but that isn’t a reason to think you have anything other than human folly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Generally, no. Remember you are the one intentionally omitting text in order to misrepresent the story. An unbiased critic would not do that.
quote: That is an obvious falsehood.
quote: No, I don’t. However, popular perception of the story is based in shoehorning it into Christian understanding, even though the story itself is pre-Christian - and obviously depicts God in a way very different from popular Christian belief. This is an example of how the alleged consistency of the Bible is imposed on it, and often at odds with the actual text.
quote: Funny how things I neither say nor believe are my preconceived doctrine. I don’t for instance, call God a liar (I don’t find it clear whether God meant that the forbidden fruit was poison or whether he meant he would execute Adam and Eve). In fact my conclusions about the story are based in the story - not on any preconceived belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It’s also quite obviously untrue. As I pointed out there are some big disagreements between Matthew and Luke/Acts - and they aren’t even fully independent, having - at least - shared sources.
quote: And that’s just silly. The Bible is obviously a collection of human-authored documents, gathered together by humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You certainly saw evidence of dishonesty. Why not admit that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Do you mean outright inventing things ? Because I don’t think liberal interpretation goes that far. Message 13. And if it does it can’t be considered honest. But confusing the roles of origin of morality and enforcer of justice isn’t even that. Message 4. Nor is using weasel wording to try work around the Constitution (same message) And I’d add.
quote: You (in general) don’t. Even if it is truly dishonest
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Except that you didn’t. That is why you had to resort to misrepresentation to support your understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Says the man who go caught in an obvious misrepresentation. And then went on to repeat that misrepresentation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You misrepresented the story, therefore the who would be the author of the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Apologetics is simply arguing in favour of a predetermined position. When that position is clearly false, honesty has to take a back seat.
It is notable that the apologists examined frequently failed the test, even though in-depth discussion was avoided. Cases where I caught an apologist being less than honest may be seen in Message 4, Message 13, Message 256 (although the last is deceptive bluster rather than outright fabrication) Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well, there can be additional lying to make the Bible fit their ideas of what it should be - but that is beyond apologetics. And really, insisting that the Bible is true when you can’t or won’t address the obvious inconsistencies is hardly honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s just not true, Phat. And I’ve already corrected you on this earlier in the thread. I’ve pointed out more than one example myself. As I posted recently:
Cases where I caught an apologist being less than honest may be seen in Message 4, Message 13, Message 256 (although the last is deceptive bluster rather than outright fabrication)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Two points that seem relevant.
Firstly, deception is part of his method. As Phat quoted in Message 617It took many hours of reading and contacting Old Testament scholars to see that RZ's Daniel argument was fundamentally dishonest. I wondered why so qualified an academic would resort to bogus tactics of persuasion... Misrepresenting his credentials to add the appearance of credibility to his claims is part of that. And it works on those who are in sufficiently sceptical. From the same quote:
...When I find a brilliant and articulate defender of the faith I tend to pay attention. Around early 2015 I happened upon RZ. He was not only articulate but had the Oxford and Cambridge education and multiple doctorate degrees to deserve a fair listen. See also the deceptive bluster quoted in Message 253 as explained in my Message 256 Secondly credential inflation seems to be quite common among creationists, who are a similar brand of apologist. From Kent Hovind’s diploma mill doctorate to the Discovery Institute’s lists of scientists to the attempts to present Werner Gitt as an academic, rather than a manager.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024