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 02-04-2001, 10:06 AM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Upon request, I looked up the exact info on that article I mentioned. Here it is for everyone else.

Nature, Volume 394, Number 6691, Page 313, 1998

The most interesting thing, I think, is that response bias would almost assuredly be heavily christian bias.

-Nick
 
Old 02-12-2001, 04:16 PM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Christopher:
"If [C.S.] Lewis is the best Christian thought has to offer, it's plainly obvious they have very little to offer indeed."</font>
I've never read C.S. Lewis before (although perhaps I should), but I do know that his "Mere Christianity" Christian apologetical book has been widely lauded by believers (and attacked by skeptics) for years.

But in answer to your accusation, no he is certainly not the best Christian thought has to offer--in fact, I imagine because of the book's age now that it's slightly outdated academically. "Mere Christianity" is what I call a beginner-level apologetics book, mostly intended for new believers who need an intellectual basis for their faith, or for honest inquirers who may be interested in Christianity. (I also believe Josh McDowell's and Lee Strobell's works fall into this category as well.)

More detailed, in-depth apologetical arguments (meant for serious apologetic students or for skeptics seeking to debunk the Bible) are made by the likes of J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Glenn Miller, and J.P. Holding.

Naturally, I assume that you and other skeptics will now proceed to attack the other apologists I mentioned above, but I wanted to state for the record that Lewis is not the best we have.

Good day.
 
Old 02-14-2001, 07:46 AM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

&lt;Remember that Jesus chastised Thomas for requiring proof&gt; (from Physicsguy posting)

Gee, from what I remember of my Lutheran days did Jesus not give Thomas the proof he asked for by letting Thomas touch the wounds?

&lt;Jesus spoke in parables so that the message would not be clear. In the same way, God has allowed there to be confusion in the Bible so that belief will be a greater act of faith.&gt;

How do you know this? Is there some divine--yet unpublished scroll--that tells you God's plan was to create confusion so we'd have faith? Or perhaps Gleason has a telepathic relationship with God? On that line of thought...if God wanted belief to be a greater act of faith why bother with Jesus in the first place? (and don't respond with "we can not know the mind of god" rhetoric)

&lt;the first of which is to "Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it.&gt;

Using this line of thought I could validate the existence of the Easterbunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy!

In short...who's the true fool?

B

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PhysicsGuy:
You fools obviously haven't read Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. It only took him 434 pages to explain away your silly 'contradictions'. You can solve the so-called difficulties if you follow his "Recommended Procedures in Dealing With Bible Difficulties", the first of which is to "Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it." His second says "Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God." It is clear that some of you have not used this well-respected Bible scholar's recommendations.

Jesus spoke in parables so that the message would not be clear. In the same way, God has allowed there to be confusion in the Bible so that belief will be a greater act of faith. Remember that Jesus chastised Thomas for requiring proof and encouraged those who believe like children and can believe without seeing. Paul warns that Christianity will seem foolish to the wise. As more and more 'wise' people think Christianity is foolish, the more we see Paul's prophecy fulfilled, and the greater assurance we can have in the truth of Christianity. Your so-called naturalistic explanations for the existence of the Bible only proves its validity as the Word of God. When I think about an all-powerful God who loves me and gives me eternal life, I feel great joy, and this joy can only come from God, so I know He exists and I know the Bible is true. I can only feel sorry for you poor fools who can't understand this.
</font>


[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited February 14, 2001).]
 
Old 02-14-2001, 10:12 AM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Gleason Archer is a total failure. McKinnsey over at Biblical Errancy simply destroys him.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin2/bepart63.htm#ref6311

contains part of a three-part discussion. Looking at that, you can see that Archer gives the a terrfying, dehumanizing justification for genocide. There is NO justification for genocide. Compared to Glenn Miller, Archer isn't just wrong, he's sick.

Michael
turton@ev1.net
 
Old 02-14-2001, 01:10 PM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Interesting link and discourse on Archer. I am not really familliar with him though it does not take an intellectual giant to see the fatal flaws in this guys argument or his defense of Archer.

B
 
Old 02-14-2001, 01:15 PM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Thomas -- your post is not clear to me. Which flaws in whose arguments, Mckinnsey's or Archers?

Michael
 
Old 02-14-2001, 01:34 PM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Sorry! Please delete this post.

Mike


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited February 14, 2001).]
 
Old 02-15-2001, 02:56 PM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
Thomas -- your post is not clear to me. Which flaws in whose arguments, Mckinnsey's or Archers?

Michael
</font>
I was refering to the original post by PhysicsGuy. Sorry if I was not clear. Mckinnsey was great and I think we both agree on Archer!

B

 
Old 02-15-2001, 03:58 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Thomas:
I was refering to the original post by PhysicsGuy. Sorry if I was not clear. Mckinnsey was great and I think we both agree on Archer!</font>
I have a feeling PhysicsGuy was being sarcastic--I've never seen him support arguments like that before.

 
Old 02-16-2001, 05:37 AM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daemon23:
Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas:
I was refering to the original post by PhysicsGuy. Sorry if I was not clear. Mckinnsey was great and I think we both agree on Archer!</font>
I have a feeling PhysicsGuy was being sarcastic--I've never seen him support arguments like that before.

Again sorry! I jumped in at the end and am not familiar with PhysicsGuy's posting. In any event, the whole Archer thing annoyed me and I had to react.

B
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 PM.

Top

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