FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-22-2001, 09:54 PM   #131
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Fifth, the reality that the criteria could be wrong is no surprise. That is the problem faced by any search for knowledge. A recent fossil discovery has overturned the widely accepted 20 year old consensus that Lucy is a direct human ancestor. Does that mean that "science" cannot be used to gain knowledge? Or that it is of no use to us because the criteria used were inappropriately used, or used on the basis of insufficient evidence?
</font>

Huh? Where did you hear that the criteria used here were used inappropriately? The criteria are not at fault; we simply have a new skull to deal with.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Of course not. But many Young Earth Creationists will be claiming just that. Just as their skeptical cousins on this board pretend that their is no way to investigate history.
</font>

1. The difference is that everything that concerns the Lucy skeleton is testable and verifiable. Here's a quote from the news source:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
After two years of exhaustive testing on the skull, Leakey said they had accumulated enough evidence to declare not only the discovery of a new species but a new genus as well.
</font>
Too bad we could never see any such quote surrounding a miracle. Why? Because miracles don't happen.


2. And the only ones around here saying that history cannot be investigated are you and Pollyfish - remember? "We can't study one-time events in history"? It's the skeptics who are saying that such events can be scientifically studied.


 
Old 03-22-2001, 10:10 PM   #132
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
On the other hand, it was nice to have an exchange with a skeptic who did not accuse me of being a liar or an a**hole or an idiot.
</font>

Notice, however, that in every case where I did the above, it was preceded by you calling me a "coward" or dishonest. You got what you deserved.

FYI - this is just another example of christians who want one standard for themselves, but another standard for everyone else. Wish I could say that I was surprised.

 
Old 03-23-2001, 03:20 AM   #133
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Ancient accounts, even eyewitness accounts, even multiply, independently attested eyewitness accounts, are not real reliable. In China the invention of paper is attributed to Cai Lun, who died in 121. This invention is attested to by all later history, where he became a god (temples to his name were frequently paper factories, and vice versa), and by the official historians of the dynasty he worked under, who knew him, government records, and other documents of the time. It's a pretty rich mix, and any historian reading it would conclude that he indeed invented paper, only archaeology has proved that paper predates Cai Lun by about 250 years. No doubt he did bring in innovations, but....</font>
I'm intrigued. What is the amazing archaeological evidence that trumps everything else. Archaeology is as much a subjective subject that can be misinterpreted and sabataged by systematic errors so I wonder how it proves paper came 250 years earlier. Certainly, carbon dating is not accruate enough to make such an assertion, so what is the evidence?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

 
Old 03-23-2001, 04:59 AM   #134
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
And the only ones around here saying that history cannot be investigated are you and Pollyfish - remember? "We can't study one-time events in history"? It's the skeptics who are saying that such events can be scientifically studied.
Quote:
</font>

This is just a flat out lie. I noticed you conveniently failed to respond to either of my last two posts. Is this the tactic you use when you concede ? I would appreciate it if you would respond to my recent posts to you.

As far as the issue of non-Christian miracles, have you even read the evidence Turtonm has posted for the existence of miracles? You haven’t given any counter-evidence to say those miracles never occurred. Layman can speak for himself if he likes, but I think most Christians would not dispute that the supernatural can occur outside a Christian environment. After reading the posts by you and Turtonm, its obvious you guys are arguing that miracles are possible. Turtonm said, “we have video of Sai Baba performing miracles.”

I thought you said earlier that miracles were impossible. When are you two gonna make up your mind?

This is all I’ll say on the topic of miracles right now because I can see how you’ll steer the topic away from what I’ve been trying to explain to you about the historical method. Please respond to my posts on history. Thanks in advance.

Peace,

Polycarp


 
Old 03-23-2001, 05:07 AM   #135
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I just noticed Bede started a thread on non-Christian miracles entitled, "Evidence and Other religion's miracles". I would almost entirely agree with him and he gives a more thorough answer than what I just gave.

I'd still like Omnedon and Turtonm to reply to me on the historical method.

Peace,

Polycarp
 
Old 03-23-2001, 06:35 AM   #136
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

It's really discouraging for me as a Humanist to see the ill-informed "skeptics" here on this board. They make easy comparison with the worst of the supernaturalists.
For one thing, the historical critical method that has determined Jesus performed "miracles" has in no way ever attempted, or represented, those miracles as "genuine" in the sense of being effectual supernatural events. When historians conclude Jesus performed miracles, they mean it the same way skeptics are saying Sai Baba is performing "miracles" - that he is doing things that other people take as supernatural events.
Multiple attestation as a criterion includes the ability to determine whether the attestation was independent or dependent on other sources. With ancient texts like the Christian writings, such determination will always tend to be rather tentative, a logical best inference rather than a definite certainty. But as someone who has examined the evidence, I would agree that the historical Jesus did do things that were acclaimed by contemporaries as miracles. Do I believe Jesus actually had supernatural powers? No, no more than Sai Baba has. But that didn't stop Jesus from doing tricks, or more likely (judging from the stories we have) they were mostly inspired by the enthusiasm of his followers, with little effort by Jesus to induce them. Faith healers don't usually bother with much sleight-of-hand; their act depends mainly on the will-to-believe of their victims.
I'd also like to see less emotionalism and name-calling among any people who pretend to rationalism or an open-minded spirit. Thanks
-ej (new user)
 
Old 03-23-2001, 06:57 AM   #137
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hey Theists!

One of the greatest "miracles" Jesus was "said" to perform involves,not only ressurecting Lazarus, but also himself.

Well I demand:

Where is Jesus? I want to physically meet him today. I would also like to see Lazarus. Since they both escaped death, then they still should be walking the earth.

I want to see Jesus right now.

You guys will no doubt have thoughts about skipping over this question, "It is to basic compared to our advance knowledge of historical terms and scientific procedures".

But even here at the most basic level, you cannot produce. I want to see Jesus now.

I mean, I want him to knock on the door to my home and say "hey".

Otherwise, I will continue to believe(through induction) that Jesus just croaked like the rest of us will.

[This message has been edited by isa457 (edited March 23, 2001).]
 
Old 03-23-2001, 07:56 AM   #138
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by isa457:
Hey Theists!

One of the greatest "miracles" Jesus was "said" to perform involves,not only ressurecting Lazarus, but also himself.

Well I demand:

Where is Jesus? I want to physically meet him today. I would also like to see Lazarus. Since they both escaped death, then they still should be walking the earth.
Quote:
</font>
Hey isa457 !!

You’ve set up a false dichotomy. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he is not on earth, but in heaven. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then his bones have long since rotted away. Either way, you won’t have the type of proof which you demand.

BTW, if you did meet Jesus today what would you say to him ?

Peace,

Polycarp
 
Old 03-23-2001, 10:23 AM   #139
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hmmm

just for the sake of argument would it be appropriate to interject that the Bible teaches that Satan, demons, and false prophets can do real live miracles?
(see for example Deuternomy 13).
Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22 say: "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible." 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says: "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles [miracles of falsehood, not magic tricks], signs and wonders." Revelation 13:13 says: "And he [the second beast] performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from Heaven to Earth in full view of men." Revelation 16:14: "They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs...." Revelation 19:20: "But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf." Matthew 7:22-23: "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ "
etc.....

Also, there were many resurrections in the Bible - and let's admit that both Paul and Sai BAba have done them - -umm like what's the big deal about Christ's? Could it be that the real question has to do with who we think Christ is, and that question cannot be addressed by historical methods at all? Is Christ God or is Sai Baba? Can a reliance on resurrection tell us? Can a reliance on historical methods tell us? Doubtful on both counts.
 
Old 03-23-2001, 11:00 AM   #140
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Polycarp:

If you met someone who claimed he was Jesus--THE Jesus, how would you know he was Jesus?

What are your standards for identifying gods/sons of gods/etc.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.