Magdlyn

As the mod requested, can we remember this is not a "Does God exist" thread?

"Why was Jesus so stupid?" :huh:

Amaleq13

Thanks but no special degrees are required to read the sources or, at the very least, the work of scholars who study them. FYI a few corrections to the CV, I've got a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and a Master of Science degree in school psychology. I'm not a doctor of anything though I did marry one.

Sure you can. All you have to do is actually read the sources that are claimed by others to contain the information alleged. You can do precisely that at the link I provided. I think you've seen why blind faith in such claims is a mistake.

Absolutely not but I am confident that I have read everything they have written that is related to Christianity because I have read everything that has been cited from them on the subject by biblical scholars.

I doubt you are the only one but don't kid yourself that you can include me in that group. I'm not simply "parroting" anyone. I took the time to find the actual references and read them. I also took the time to find commentaries on these references by a variety of scholars (atheist and Christian).

I understand that it might be embarrassing to have faithfully repeated misleading claims you've no doubt obtained from some apologist-scholar (eg McDowell) without checking for yourself first but that is no reason to get huffy with me for providing the correct information. You were clearly misled but the only rational response is to learn from the experience rather than attack the messenger.

Procurator

Amaleq13,

Hi. You're perhaps not as discerning as I first thought.

1) I am not in the least bit embarrassed -- I expected to be torn to shreds from the moment that I entered the debate. It doesn't sway me in the least; I may not be a veteran user on this site, but I am on several others. I have experience, which amounts to something: I know how to debate light-heartedly.
2) I did check for myself. As I have already stated, it wasn't enough.
3) I wasn't being huffy. Hard though it may be for you to believe, I was actually paying you a complement. Hence the reason for the remark at the top of this post. :banghead:
4) I wasn't attacking you, and neither could I. I'm not that way inclined. A little ad hominem on my part doesn't make me malicious.
5) What I have learned is that there is surprisingly little evidence for what is told in the NT. It intrigues me, but doesn't compel me to renounce my beliefs. Sorry.

I suppose I should thank you for being gracious -- more so than some of the others.

Ciao,

Procurator

Angrillori

So, now I come back to this thread, and it looks like Amaleq did my work for me.

Apologies.

In any event, for added info on reliableness of the NT, and the corroborating accounts, check out any of the numerous HJ (Historical Jesus) threads that used to be the bread and butter of this forum.

Also, whether or not you believe in the Jesus Myth, Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle does contain quite a bit of discussion as to why extra-biblical accounts of the life of Jesus are unreliable at best.

This ( http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=83701 ) may not be the best thread, but it does have some good discussion in it.

Amaleq13

I'll keep this continuation of the tangent brief.

My mistake. I assumed you would have the typical reaction to discovering assertions you had made were contrary to the facts.

I'll have to take your word for it though I don't see how any amount of checking could fail to detect the disparity between the claims and the actual text.

I do find it difficult to discern a genuine compliment amidst the apparent sarcasm.

An "ad hominem" is typically defined as an attack upon the person rather than the argument so admitting to one is admitting to an "attack". I don't take them personally but simply recognize them for what they are.

I wasn't suggesting that you renounce your beliefs. I only suggested that you rephrase your reference to the evidence in the future so that it accurately reflects the contents.

Pyrrho

Your mistake is that you are using human ideas of good and bad, and these ideas do not apply to Santa Claus. He uses His standards that only He understands. But, nevertheless, I maintain that He is truly good.

Edited to add:

Joke or not, it is a good analogy for religious discussions.

Pyrrho

The trouble is that this kind of thinking leads to things like the Inquisition and the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York. Do you think it is good for people to believe without evidence? You might want to look at:

http://www.ethicsofbelief.com/


The trouble is, reason shows at least as well that God does not exist. Some versions of God are contradictory, and therefore not even logically possible. Others are simply inconsistent with the world as it is.

Evoken

Nonsense..people commit crimes with or without evidence and with or without beliefs.

Pyrrho

Are you denying that religion had something to do with the Inquisition and the destruction of the World Trade Center?

Of course, there are crimes committed that have nothing to do with religion, but that does not alter the fact that religion is a powerful motivating force in committing atrocities. In other words, there would still be crime without religion, but there would not be all of the crimes that have been committed. Many crimes have been committed because of groundless religious beliefs.

Evoken

Anything can be a powerful motivating force to commit atrocities, people can turn a good thing into an excuse to kill each other. Hell I have seen fans of different baseball teams fight each other simply because the contrary team won the finals.

I agree and I don't deny it, and I too agree that they are groundless because most of the time they are not aproved by the religion that is used to commit them.