Vorkosigan

<loud applause>

RobertLW

BLT, Thanks for your reply. However, presumptions are not "merely a starting point, subject to change, and not necessarily consistent through application." Presumptions should be based in our ultimate authority, our epistemological basis for knowledge. Since the ultimate authority is indeed ultimate, the presumptions cannot be changed midstream lest one be inconsistent and render ones' ultimate authority moot. If one becomes inconsistent with the application of presumption, then they become arbitrary. Or if one argues without ultimate authority, they are being arbitrary. To borrow the crate of apples analogy, you would have to assume you know the difference between good apples and bad apples to determine which ones are good and which ones are bad. This is where ones' ultimate authority, the epistemological basis for knowledge comes in.

Clutch, Thanks again. I am not sure what you meant when you wrote, "There are presuppositions to everything; the trick is show how one's case implicates only shared ones". Can you clarify what you mean by "shared ones"?


Vinnie, Thanks for your reply as well. I justified treating the Bible with collective dimension by admitting inspiration. I admitted I cannot demonstrate Biblical inspiration. However, I clearly stated that I presume the verity of the Biblical authors. It seems as though you make the opposite assumption and therefore will not admit inspiration. (However, as far as canonization of the Bible goes, inpiration is not the only criteria.) This goes to my point. You and I are operating under different presumptions, which makes the presumptions the heart of the matter.

Feel free to attack my presumptions. However, before you do, I ask that you let me know what your ultimate authority is and why it is your ultimate authority. What is your epistemological basis for knowledge and why?



On another topic. I am still not understanding the entire objection to the seperate stories of Judas in the Bible. Am I really to allow that the Bible provides two seperate descriptions as to the means of Judas's death? One by hanging and two by spontaneous evisceration? If so, can someone please describe how spontaneous evisceration is reasonable? The way I am reading the book is one verse describes the means of his death and the other descrbes what happened to him, most likely post mortem.

Thanks.

Robert

Wiploc

- Story one:

What happened to Judas? He fell down and his guts burst out on the ground. Implication: divine retribution; he had done a really bad thing, so he suffered the consequences by the hand of god.

- Story two:

What happened to Judas? He hanged himself. Implication: he knew he had been objectively bad, and he couldn't live with that knowledge, so he took his life by his own hand.

If both stories are true, then one is misleading. If the fell-down-and-burst story only happened to a corpse, it has no relevance to the question of what really happened to Judas. If someone asked you what happened to Ethel Rosenberg, you could say, "They strapped her into an electric chair. They ran current thru her body until she was dead!" That would be telling the truth. Or, you could tell the story differently: "It was terrible! Worms devoured her flesh! Microbs turned her skin to water so she just kind of slumpped into a pile of slop! Anarobic bacteria made her smell terrible, so that nobody could approach her." That would be giving a false impression. It may be literally true, but it gives a false impression unless you point out that she was already dead, and that this describes what happens to most of us once we die.

If a teenager totalled her car by running it into a tree, and answered her dad's question as to what happened to the car by saying, "The police towed it. The area wasn't marked 'no parking' or anything. They towed it away without even asking me. They put it into one of those crunching machines that reduced it to a little brick. Now I need a new car and the police don't give me any sympathy at all when I complain." She could say that, and she could be telling the literal truth, but she would be engaging in deception.

If Judas really died by hanging, it is fundamentally misleading to tell people that he fell down and burst. An inerrant storyteller, a trustworthy storyteller, a deciple of a truthful god, wouldn't be be telling a misleading story of how Judas ended. A truthful and accurate god wouldn't be including a misleading story in a book that he wants people to think is reliable.

crc

Sven

I might add this: As a test, I gave my girl-friend those two passages to read. She was raised without religion, including her parents/relatives telling her almost nothing about religions (I specifically asked her about it) - so she has a small bias to start with. I did not indiacte that there are contradictions in the passages - but after reading the passages she just laughed and immediately pointed out three contradictions herself (the kind of death, who bought the field and why it was named "field of blood").

So, exactly here lies the problem: Anyone reading the bible without bias can only come to the conclusion that it is not inerrant - leading to the problem wiploc points out above.

Vinnie

Yeah, you wanted to assume canoniation and inspiration while I actually expected you to argue for these things.

Vinnie

RobertLW

Wiploc, Thanks for your reply. I am confused about your answer though and am hoping you will be kind enough to clarify what you mean.

You said that the implication of the passage in Acts is divine retribution, by the hand of God. First, I do not see any text that supports this implication, can you provide the text that supports this specific implication? Second, in order for this implication to make sense you must first presume that the Biblical God of Abraham exists and has the power over life and death in order to dispense his retribution upon Judas as described in the Bible. How can you first presume that it is true in order to conclude that is false?

You also provide 2 analogies but I am confused about your specific objection to the passages. You provided description A, the means of death and description B, the post mortem results of death. Is your objection descriptions A and B contradict and therefore false? Or, is your objection description B is misleading, God would never mislead his creation and is therefore false?

I do not find description b as misleading because I keep the description within it's intended context. The passage is not intended to provide a detailed description of the death of Judas. To use your analogy, I could teach a class called, "Consequenses of violating U.S. criminal law". During one of my lessons I could say, "Ethel Rosenberg violated U.S. criminal law and did not respect the sanctity of human life; worms devoured her flesh! Microbs turned her skin to water so she just kind of slumpped into a pile of slop! Anarobic bacteria made her smell terrible, so that nobody could approach her." My intent was not to provide a detailed description of the circumstances of her violation, arrest, sentence and excecution, but to provide a direct link between action and consequence using a graphic illustration to grab the attention of the audience.

Sven, Thanks. I am curious, did you provide your girlfriend with all the tools neccessary in order to make an informed decision? Or, did you set it up so that she could not truly compare two different objects in order for her to find what you wanted her to find? With all respects, if you truly want an unbiased opinion, you should also provide her with a true representation of the opposing view, as well as your own so that she can make an informed judgement rather than a snap judgement.

Vinnie, Thanks again. I understand your objection, however, I have clearly stated that I make my conclusions based on my presumptions. My presumption was my argument. If you believe my presumptions to be incorrect, please tell me why. I am hoping that you will be kind enough to answer 3 questions:

1. What is your ultimate authority?
2. Why is it your ultimate authority?
3. Using your ultimate authority, why are my presumptions incorrect?

Thanks,

Robert

Sven

Please explain
(1) what exactly are these "tools neccessary in order to make an informed decision", how one can "truly compare [these] two different objects", what is the "true representation of the opposing view".
(2) why this is necessary. My point simply was that a person reading only the bible without bias can only come to the conclusion of errancy. Why is your holy book written in such a manner that one needs all the additional things you hopefully are going to explain in answer to (1)? You are claiming an omnipotent being inspired (wrote) it, why didn't he make it in such a way that it does not appear errant?

Please read again what you wrote here

Vinnie

Ultimate authority? What did you want to debate? TAG or Errancy?

Vinnie

Wiploc

Aren't you the one who protested that spontaneous eviceration was implausible?



No. I'm just telling you how I read that text.



This is a technique you use all the time and cannot criticise in good faith. Suppose a parent said to a child, "No you didn't wash your hands, because if you had washed your hands, then your hands would be clean." And suppose the child responded, "How can you presume that I washed my hands in order to conclude that I didn't?" You can see that the kid doesn't have a case.



If the story of the hanging were true, then a truthful and accurate god would not have told the story of the guts spilling as if that was the way Judas died. If the story of the spilling guts is not misleading, then a truthful and accurate god would not have told the story of the hanging as if that was how Judas died. Therefore: regardless of whether there exists such a god, the bible is not the work of such a god.



The context is that it was told by a different guy than the guy who told the other story. It was told to a different audience. If that audience understood the story the way I do, as opposed to the way you do, then they were mislead by the story unless the other story is wrong.



Well, if you did that, you'd want to mention the relationship between the cause and the effect. Otherwise, if anybody believed you at all, you would be causing confusion.

crc

RobertLW

Sven, Thanks for your reply. If you do not know know the tools and methods needed in order make a valid comparative analysis, I don't know what to tell you. I certianly don't know what to tell you if you do not know why they are needed. I would think you would already know these things if you were to engage in comparative analysis.

In reality all you have shown is that your girlfriend who, in your words, has a "small bias", (small bias is not unbiased) can come to a conclusion that supports yours when shown two very narrow written texts by which to compare. This a very long way from showing "only the Bible without bias".

I have no need to re-read what I wrote. I presume the verity of the Biblical authors. This presumption is my argument. Since you imply that I am incorrect, maybe you be kind enough to answer me three questions:

1. What is your ultimate authority?
2. Why is it your ultimate authority?
3. Using your ultimate authority, why are my presumptions incorrect?


Vinnie, Thanks again. We are discussing inerrancy. My argument is that I presume the verity of the Biblical authors. You are saying that my presumption is false. I am simply asking why is it false? Is that not fair? You know my ultimate authority and since you are familiar with TAG, you know why. If you are going to claim that my presumption is false the very least you can do is explain why. For us to be on the same footing in order to have a productive dialog, you could simply answer my three questions.


Wiploc, Thanks for your reply but I am no more closer to understanding your specific objection. Please allow me to be a bit more specific:

1. Is your objection that description A and description B do not agree and is therefore false?

2. Is your objection that description B is misleading, God would never mislead his creation and is therefore false?

Thanks to all.

Robert