David Bowden

I agree with this observation, madmax. It's not the most efficient way to critique this religion or to debunk its claims.

However, as long as the inerrancy doctrine is pushed in support of other Christian claims, and as long as it is popularly accepted as certain proof of the validity of the Christian message, it behooves those of us who are informed unbelievers to remind any 'undecided' readers and listeners that the Bible is not everything its believers claim it to be. We are undermining a false claim, and showing it for what it is.

If in so doing, it becomes obvious to a wavering believer or an undecided seeker that Christian defenses are less credible than our critical assessment, then among other benefits we have lives changed for the better and a slightly less credulous population.

Perhaps it also provides an education of sorts for any infidels desiring one: along the lines of know what you believe (and don't believe) and why. I sometimes wonder if some of these Christian posters are really just benevolent atheists offering up textbook examples of flawed reasoning in order to allow us to hone our critical thinking skills. But then I remember that only a few years ago I used to believe and preach this stuff...

-Wanderer

"...if I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist..."
-- Isaac Asimov

Koyaanisqatsi

You noticed that, too, Skeptic?

And he's a lawyer no less! Perhaps now we'll have a "you have to go back to the original documents" fallacy, or better still, "you have to go to the original intent of the authors" fallacy.

Too bad he already established the "reasonableness" standard as it utterly destroys his position.

(yes, Atticus, I'm merely baiting you...I did go to considerable lengths to address your challenge and do, indeed, feel like you have simply weaseled out of it, so, again, do not consider that invective so much as apt description)

hezekiah jones

That's the scary part. The ludicrous apologetics pale in comparison.

Jeremy Pallant

Certainly, Atticus Finch, a narrative isn't necessarily set out in chronological order, though the language used would indicate this. I would maintain that in the passage in dispute there is no language being used that would reasonably lead one to conclude that the events are being related out of order.

If you were to have read Matthew 28:1 - 5 without knowledge of the other resurrection accounts, would you have concluded that the narrative was anything but chronological, and if so, why?

(Edited to add...)

Oh, and if you can spare the time, I would appreciate your analysis of how it is possible for god and the devil to have caused David to order a census.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: J. Mordecai Pallant ]</p>

Baloo

Who wants to bet that this turns into another case of:

FreeToThink

Atticus is not available to post a cogent response because his lawyerly duties occupy him elsewhere... hmmm.. maybe he is off in court somewhere arguing that the Hebrew Creation Myth needs to be taught as science to this nation's schoolchildren.

FreeToThink

and yes, my only contribution to this thread has been to taunt Atticus. It's a fun job, and someone's gotta do it.


edited to fix the smiley

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: FreeToThink ]</p>

Baloo

Ah, teamwork...

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, since Atticus is so far personae non gratis and no writ of habeas corpus is forthcoming (i.e., it appears he isn't going to address my response directly), let's pick over his last droppings

What "evidence" would that be, counselor? As you well know, hearsay testimony is inadmissible because it is entirely (and inherently) useless.

And, yes, we should hold to the same standards of evidentiary procedures as a courtroom.

Generally? You mean, "as a guideline to establish reasonableness?"

Oh, good.

True, but the instances in which it is not are both exceedingly rare as well as relatively modern within literary circles.

Could you provide us with an example of a narrative structure within the Bible, perhaps, that would be an example of what you're talking about (other than the one in contention, of course, and Genesis doesn't count since the conflation of disparate texts is not the issue).

Attempting to form some sort of reasonable doubt defense, by the way, is one element of courtroom process that is not valid here.

Please bear in mind, of course, that the authors of the gospel accounts are allegedly recording factual events as they actually happened. That's what it means to be a witness.

So if you are going to argue that we have to conflate the gospel accounts and sift out the true event from the contradictory details, then you've shot yourself in the foot right from the start.

That is a literary style only acceptable in mythology, not factual historical documentation.

So please let us know if we are going to be examining these documents as factual historical witnesses of actual events, or merely what you're implying so far, the poetic license of fictional mythologies.

I'm sure you'll agree that they can't be both.

That is an as yet unqualified assertion on your part and, as I've mentioned, much more indicative of mythology, not the factual detailing of actual historical events.

Or is it your custom in a court of law to allow a second witness to simply omit details provided by the first witness, instructing the jury to just "take those first details as read?"

Logical consistency is all I'm trying to establish here, so it's your choice: factual documents of actual events or poetic license of mythology?

Well, technically yes, but irrelevant. This was your unreasonable and demonstrably invalid standard that has been shown to be fallacious.

Invalid premises do not a valid conclusion make; at least not in this instance

As has been demonstrated, your standard of reasonableness has not been met by your assertion that the author of Matthew has simply decided to take as read Mark, unless you'd like to concede right now that this would be incontrovertible evidence of mythology and not a "God inspired" account of what factually occurred.

It is entirely unreasonable to assert that a witness to a factual event (even if that witness is only "inspired," whatever that may mean) would simply selectively addend profound events that one author omitted and vice versa.

Again, that would be incontrovertible evidence of mythology, not factual accounting of actual events as they historically occurred.

Conversely, if it is unreasonable, then we can (and have) concluded that the two passages contradict one another, and not just on the one point you have elected to focus upon, conveniently ignoring the other contradictions also demonstrated.


Again, such a standard is not a reasonable one to apply to an historical document that purports to relate actual historical events as they factually occurred.

The "benefit of the doubt" doctrine you are attempting to weasel into your apologetics would prove only that you are discussing the poetic license of authors of fiction.

Your objections are overruled, counselor. Call your next witness...

Mochaloca

I was enjoying this thread as an observer, but now feel compelled to put my 2 cents in. I may as well confess up front that I have a pet peeve of people using legal terminolgy incorrectly. This seems to have happened here involving the issue of the chronology of a text in Matthew (IIRC).

IMO, Atticus has attempted to introduce a legal concept involving circumstantial evidence by substituting the term "non-contradictory" for "reasonable." (The rule is that if you have two inferences that you may draw from a fact and one is reasonable as to guilt or innocence and the other is unreasonable as to guilt or innocence, you must find the reasonable inference to be true and reject the unreasonable. If you have two reasonable inferences both of which point to guilt or innocence, you must choose the inference which points to innocence).

This rule applies to a criminal case where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. (Nobody knows what reasonable doubt really is, but we all pretend that we do).

IMO, Atticus' "fair analysis" is something he just made up. The real test would be; is it reasonable to read the text as being chronological?

Koy is incorrect is stating that all hearsay is inadmissible & inherently unreliable. Many people would probably be surprised to find out that there are numerous exceptions to the "hearsay" rule. Having said that, there does not appear to be any exceptions applicable to this issue. In fact the bible as a whole would be considered hearsay and would be inadmissible to prove any factual issues contained therein (how's that for legalese?).

However, if we narrow the issue in this case to whether or not the text is chronological, we can consider it for that purpose only.

The evidence would start with the plain language of the text itself (I am assuming that everyone is in agreement about the English translation of same). As Atticus has the burden to prove that the text is not chronological,and therefore not contradictory to the other texts, he cannot take advantage of any doubt. If there is any doubt,it must be resolved in favor of the text being chronological, and therefore contradictory.

Apparently, Atticus is calling on himself as a witness to prove that the text is a narrative that is not chronological. He is merely stating the assertion is a "reasonable possibility." Because there is nothing to show why we should look beyond the plain languange of the text, any judge would suppress this "testimony" on the basis of an objection as to speculation. (Remember were applying courtroom standards)!

Therefore, IMO, a neutral jury (if you could find one) would have no choice but to find that the text was chronological and therefore contradictory to the other passages in the bible purporting to relate the same facts.

M.