Scrutinizer

Well, books like C.S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy are different from the Bible in that, take for instance the New Testament -- The Gospels were written as a record of the sayings and movements of the Son of God -- they're not just reflections on a personal conversion to Christianity like Surprised by Joy. The rest of the New Testament was the foundation for the doctrine of the Church as it was written shortly after Jesus' time, by those who knew Jesus or knew those who knew Jesus. These books, therefore, are very important, as they are much closer to the event.

The Old Testament has important things like the 10 commandments, and I see no reason to dismiss that story. Whilst the books you mentioned above may be very useful and may also have parts that were inspired and authorised by God, the Bible is very important in that most of the books contained therein have some special significance -- whether it be prophesy, an account of Jesus, the first Christian doctrine, etc.

None, and I never claimed that it does. The reason I wrote the above statement in a previous post was because I was responding to this particular statement by brighid:

"the average man or woman writing a book on a religion is not usually claiming divine revelation"

I was simply asking whereabouts a writer of the Bible was claiming to be writing a book that was entirely the Word of God.

Would the credibility of a Resurrection increase in your mind just because a Christian claimed that it was written in a book entirely inerrant from the lips of God? Surely the very claim that it was inerrant, etc., would require a very high level of verification, so you would still be arguing "on the basis of a book that is only purportedly divine we are supposed to believe...?".

The credibility of a story is not based upon whether or not someone claims that the Bible is inerrant, but whether or not there is evidence to support it.

These next two quotes of yours can be taken hand-in-hand:

Well, as I said earlier, I am strongly considering becoming a presuppositionalist, and I can almost tenuously declare myself one now, so if it becomes "official", by house isn't built on sand at all -- it is built upon the necessary foundation of Christ.

Regarding the "occasional moments of falsity", I take the view that something should not be presumed errant until it is shown to be errant -- in other words, the benefit of the doubt is given to the text itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself. If there is an obvious historical error, clearly, that is a "falsity"! I don't, however, simply assume that something is false because it is miraculous.

Becoming a presuppositionalist does not mean rejecting the evidence. Becoming a presuppositionalist means that interpreting the evidence in any way other than on the presupposition of the Christian God is futile. A presuppositionalist can still point to the historical evidence for the Resurrection, but it would be more important to convince the skeptic that the evidence is only reliable from a Christian presupposition before trying to convince them that the evidence is strong in itself.

Divine hiddenness theodicies do not say that God wanted to remain so hidden that we would never be able to understand him at all -- they simply explain why the current level of hiddenness exists.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

brighid

Oh – if I was not so damned tired this morning I could really have fun with this – but it’s going to have to wait as I am leaving soon. What is this nonsense about memories working different back then? Thank you for the hearty laugh this morning. Please provide some evidence that the memories of the Jewish Rabbis – who by the way did not write the NT or even Jesus – who consequently authored NOTHING in the NT – is that actually relevant? Are you saying that after 100 years of telling a story – with no written account to check against – and after it has been passed from person to person – that it remains AUTHENTIC to the original and actual experience? You are kidding me right? It’s also interesting that one of your authors refers to the rabbis as “editors” – wow – surely supported of a verbatim and consistently accurate accounting of tales.

Let’s entertain for a moment that the actual accounts in regards to Jesus were indeed memorized via rote and in those multiple retellings over decades that absolutely NOTHING changed prior to it being written down in it’s original text. And this is asking for any educated and rational person to give you a hell of a lot of wiggle room, but let’s hypothetically concede to this. What proof do you have that the originally memorized version was indeed the ACTUAL event or words that took place? Ate we to believe that the Apostles were memorizing Jesus’ words as he spoke them and committed them to memory verbatim? And that those they told in the days, months and years before Christianity was widely disseminated that this was how the tales of Jesus and his words and actions were taught??? Okay – now I am laughing so hard people are starting to come by to discover what it so funny! Oh I can see it now – those illiterate goat herders (who did not know how to read or write) were steadfastly sitting in front of their Savior with pencil and papyrus in hand, jotting down notes for posterity! I wonder did they know shorthand??

Furthermore, it is well known that many books were left out of the bible – these books have been edited and redacted and for centuries the books were kept away from the general public. Yet – we are to believe that these versions are authentic, that no change has happened to them and they remain true to the original life of Jesus and his words are authentic and true!!

Thank you so much Scrutinizer for presenting such compelling evidence to prove my point!


Oh and "current level of hiddenness exists" ... By what method, scientific or otherwise are they able to determine the degree to which god is hidden and how much he is revealed? Are his feet poking out from under the drapes in the living room, while his form remain hidden by grandmas velvet drapes? Naughty boy - I can see you .... oh my stomach hurts!!!

Brighid

Scrutinizer

Brighid,

I'm sorry, but I don't debate with those who are openly rude and disdainful. I find it very ironic that you, who posted the "Bigotry... do you fit the model?" thread, and wrote this:

"Belittlement of members of other religions. They will constantly criticize the opinions of other religions or even ridicule them. Often they will do it without explicitly making mention of the religion of the person or persons."

can then turn around and do exactly that to my post, which quoted from very knowledgeable Christians, including Biblical scholars.

Simply laughing superciliously does not affect anything I wrote, so unless you become respectful, I have nothing further to say to you.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

HRG

Yes, I'm afraid I'm so simple *) that I expect a God who wants to convince intelligent beings of his existence, presence and personal involvment with everyone of us to be familiar with the rule "ex falso quodlibet": a single contradiction will vitiate a whole set of propositions.

The Bible is not supposed to be like Tolkien's History of Middle Earth, nor the collection of all Star Trek novels (whose mutual inconsistencies about Romulan political structures are blatant, to say the least!). It is supposed to be the message of God to the whole of mankind, even to mathematicians ;-)

Regards,
HRG.


*) aka "used to think logically"

Photocrat

So, by this logic, is it reasonable to throw out the baby with the bath water? Why?

This is why critical thinking is valued, no? Apparently it really isn't valued, or that is the direct implication of your statement, in any event...

How do you explain the contradiction of the skeptics who claim to promote critical thinking while never using it? That, to me, is what is really interesting, here ...

Photocrat

Why is it that skeptics & atheists are assuming here that fundamentalism is the only "true" faith?

Why is that not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

I can "defeat" atheism in the same way:

1) Unless you hold "there is no god(s|ess|esses|)" as a positive belief, you are not really an atheist, or your atheism has no "epistemic value" (or any other number of absurdities, I will spare you here

2) Since the belief in #1 is not logical [no proof for universal negatives & all that :] "true" atheism is not logical.

Two options:

1) This is not valid reasoning.
- Return to square one.

2) This is valid reasoning.
- By 1 & 2, God exists :]

Which is it? You're either wrong or you're wrong, therefore, you are wrong (by tautology) so which wrong do you want to be? Personally, I'd rather you tried #2 for a change :]

Toto

Photocrat - you keep posing this false choice, as if applying critical thinking to the Bible would somehow make Christianity make sense and defeat atheism. Once you start to apply critical thinking to the Bible, nothing is left. It all unravels - none of it can be used as a guide.

This is not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. That fallacy comes into play when an atheist points out that Christian nations throughout history have not been very humane, and you say that they were not "true Christians".


This is pretty bizarre. Have you ever studied logic?

What you call "true" atheism is what most people call "strong atheism" - the belief that there is no god. Most atheists hold that you cannot prove absolutely that god does not exist, and just say that they have no belief in a god.

But if the strong belief that there is no god cannot be proven, it does not follow that god must exist. It's like saying that if you didn't have beef for dinner, you must have had chicken - ignoring the many other choices on the menu.

brighid

I am asking questions relevant to how you determine credible and authoritative sources? I admit I am belittling the criteria you and others use to determine such things, in this case it happens to be in accord with your particular religious books. And although I can admit that I find myself experiencing prejudicial thoughts in regards to Christians and find some particularly tedious to spend time with – I do not discriminate against Christians. There is a tenant of my code of honor that I strive to adhere to under all circumstances and that is to judge all people by their direct actions, and not my preconceived notions of what they may or may not be. At times I lapse, but a majority of the time I prevail in adhering to this moral code. Hence the reason my closest friends come from every background – including religious, ethnic, racial, political and socioeconomic background. Therefore – if you act in a certain manner regularly I will draw at determination about you – specifically and although it would be convenient for me to believe that all Christians are simple minded – that would be hypocritical and against my better judgment.

I would say that calling into account the credibility and authority of any literary work – sacred or not – to be bigoted. I happen to apply the same criteria to all information I come across – we happen to be discussing Christianity and the Bible at this moment. I have made suppositions about you, nor have I developed any preconceived ideas about you because you are a Christian – I happen to be attacking the methods you use to develop your belief in a god and why you put authority in these things. I personally find the criteria you use to be absolutely laughable. Is this rude – I suppose it can be classified as this and if you find me rude – but I think disregarding my questions is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. Get use to having your ideas challenged and challenged staunchly and intelligently – even rudely at times. However you must remember that you have come to the house of the infidel – not vice versa and you have deliberately put yourself in the line of fire. I did not come to your house to rattle your chain. So – if the fire is too hot, you may reconsider debating here – or wear a protective suit.

Also understand that in this forum you will be held to a much higher standard of proof than you are use to using and that you will face much tougher debating opponents here as well. If you tactic is going to be a refusal to answer questions or debate because your feathers have been ruffled you will meet with great disappointment.

So, now that the air is cleared – please answer the questions I posted to you – specifically and without evasion.

Thank you so kindly,
Brighid

brighid

CORRECTION to my last post: "I would say that calling into account the credibility and authority of any literary work – sacred or not – NOT to be bigoted. "

brighid

brighid

Scrutinizer -

I would also like to point out that you are in the Biblical Criticism part of this forum .....

brighid