Nomad

This raises an interesting question Ulrich:

Do you agree with jess that it is the fault of the Christians, Muslims and Sikhs of South Asia that they are being murdered and persecuted by Hindus?

Nomad

jess

Nomad:

I am sorry that you have left the discussion, Nomad. Especially since it was over a tangent (persectution) which had nothing to do with our discussion (the legitimacy of several anthropologists to be considered 'experts' in their field of warfare). I am left without clarity as to what an expert is, and will have no guide to use in discussions in the future.

I am sorry if my statement was distasteful to you. You asked if I would admit that religious ferver drives the hatred felt by many in India that is held against Muslims, Christians and Sihks. I had already quoted to you from The World Jewish Congress about India's tolerance. One would think both could not be true. Stipulating that there does exist a hatred felt by many in India that is held against Muslims, Christians and Sihks, I answered that I feel that I find it self defense in a religious persecution by monotheists, not a religious war. The question was about hatred, not violence.

In any case, we were talking about religious wars, at the time, so the entire point was moot.

You seem to be displaying a monotheistic bent here, Nomad. This is a two edged sword we are using, and your original post was uncomfortably prejudiced against Hindus. I merely responded as logically as I could, knowing what I do know about the current (not past, as you seem to believe) situations in India. We were not speaking about a single incident when we were discussing the generic hostility in India, so I had to respond using what knowledge of current events I have. If you have other information that I am lacking, please share it with me.

I am not willing to blame the victims for being murdered and persecuted. However, I will understand that there are some situations that are dangerous that are also easily avoided. In those situations, and this may well be 'cruel' of me, but I do have less sympathy for the victim. We are responsible for our actions, Nomad. If my wallet is stolen out of my unlocked car, after I had left it on the seat with the window down, am I not more responsible than if it had been locked away in the glove box in a locked (and sealed) car?

I am sorry, as the persectuion/violence segment of our discussion about 'what is an expert' was merely a tangent. It should have been dropped much earlier.

Please note, I did say 'defense' not 'revenge'. I was talking about current atrocities being committed by Christians, Muslims and Sikhs being answered with atrocities being committed by Hindus. There is a difference.

There is also a difference between leaving the topic over a tangent and leaving it when the discussion at hand, 'what is evidence', has been completed.

Self responsibilty and tolerance for all peoples are not things I want to 'get past', although I do appreciate your best wishes. I hope you will accept the same sentiment from me.

jess

sentinel00

<shrugs> When I read jess' post, I didn't take from it that she in any way condoned the actions of murderers, or excused them in any way. She was merely pointing to more complex reasons for the killings than to naively think everything in life is based upon some 2 dimensional characterization.

Nomad, try reading it again.

BobDobbs

I am sorry that he left the discussion before telling me why Paul is qualified to tell me what to do with my Penis.

Bob

Edited for grammar and spelling.

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: BobDobbs ]

jess

sentinel00:

I am not even for capital punishment, if that helps clarify where I stand on violence and murder.

Ulrich

I don't think Jess even made that statement. She did however point out that often, when a person is murdered, they are found to be less than innocent, and that the murder may have had some mitigating circumstance. Not in so many words, perhaps, but I didn't see it so much as condoning an action rather than pointing one out.

What I did see was you ignoring the substance of her post in favor of this single misconception.

Nomad

Hi Bob

I have not left the discussion of this thread, only my exchange with jess.

Once again, however, I will restate that when we are talking about evidence, and what qualifies as an expert, I am not also claiming that either the evidence is sufficient, or even that the expert (or non-expert) witness, is correct.

I am unsure why this issue appears to be so confusing to some sceptics here. Perhaps an illustration will help:

Without question, John Dominic Crossan is an expert in the field of Biblical studies. His opinion in such matters is, and should be treated as, evidence. At the same time, when he is wrong (as is always possible with human beings and their opinions), we can reject his opinion as not being correct or good evidence. To do this, the weight of counter arguments and evidence would need to be brought to bear however. My simply saying that I find him unpersuasive would not be sufficient. I would expect those (including myself) who disagree with Crossan to offer valid arguments and evidence to rebut him.

On the other hand, if two non-experts now wish to debate the same issue, their opinions are not evidence of anything except what they happen to personally believe. Casual dismissal of the opinions given by either participant may be granted on the grounds that the person has offered no supports of his or her views.

So, using the above example, Crossan tells us that Jesus was not buried by Joseph of Arimathea. It is not sufficient for me to say that Crossan is wrong. His opinion carries enough weight on its own to require me to show why he is wrong, and thus, we have a discussion on why he has erred in his treatment of the empty tomb tradition, and demonstrate that Joseph of Arimathea is probably historical, ect. As a part of my presentation, I would also be expected to support my arguments by referring to other reputable scholarly and expert opinion and their findings. This is how a debate takes place.

As to your question about Paul's expertise on the issue of circumcision, here you are asking a theologically based question. As one of the founding members of Christianity, and author (or inspirational force behind) a good number of our sacred texts, Paul is, by definition, an expert in Christian theology.

Is he right? that is where the debate takes place. But if you will not even allow his views to be entered by a Christian into a discussion of the question of the need for circumcision, then you will have a very short and unproductive conversation. In effect, the books of the Bible are prima facie evidence in any discussion of the Bible or Christian theology, and arguing about that evidence (including through the use of other evidence) forms the basis of the discussion and debate.

Be well,

Nomad

Koyaanisqatsi

I was actually following this with interest until Nomad pulled one of his famous evasion stunts, there.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, eh Nomad? And you were doing so well at carefully giving the impression that you were honestly seeking to address the points.

As to the "biblical expert" garbage, my two cents are: you could only be an expert on the bible so long as you are an atheist first and foremost.

Any scholars quoted who are not atheists (or at the very least, agnostic) would necessarily be biased to an unknown and nearly impossible to determine degree, and therefore difficult at best to trust for no other reason.

After all, if you're looking to find out the truth about tobacco, for example, the last thing you should do is ask a scientist who is paid by the tobacco industry, yes?

Or, at the very least, if you do, keep that information for comparison sake to gauge the level of propaganda and outright lies such a bias represents.

Since, however, there is nothing about the bible beyond a debate of which word means which word that we would need an "expert" for, I see little point in calling them into question at all. The Bible is not an historical document about factual events as much as it is a mythical account of cult oriented beliefs.

No "expert" is needed to make such an obvious observation. Even Nomad agrees. It is only evidence of what an ancient cult believes.

No expert is required to asses the veracity of cult myths anymore than we'd need an expert on Grimm's Fairy tales to tell us that the fairy tales are fictional. We know they're fictional.

If someone were gullible enough (or brainwashed enough) to believe that they were in fact reading non-fiction, then we still wouldn't need an "expert," as all it would take is to ask them upon what evidence would they base such a remarkable claim?

If they said, "the bible," then we know conclusively that they have been brainwashed, as there is no other explanation for anyone stating, "the text is true because the text says it is true." That is a patently invalid declarative and could not possibly be made by any form of intelligent individual who was not in some manner indoctrinated into and or influenced by a cult that instructed them to make such declaratives as a form of "apologetics."

Likewise if the answer is, "you must have faith," as that instantly and automatically negates the entire purpose of any and all veracity claims of the bible. If all anyone needs is faith, then the bible is irrelevant.

If, however, they said, "I don't care about evidence, I just want to believe it's true regardless," well then we'd know that they're just frightened, mentally disturbed individuals looking desperately for surcease of sorrow and are clearly so terrified of life that they need to believe such obvious lies and god bless. So long as they never mention such irrational beliefs for the purposes of further indoctrination of another living soul, no harm, no foul.

Preach it, teach it, proclaim it as a truth state through threat of any form of punishment, however, and the only logical result should be removal from society as detrimental and court ordered psychiatric evaluation and treatment followed by jail time, if necessary, for grievous mental harm.

But then, I'm a moderate on this issue.

pug846

Koyaanisqatsi said:

Before Nomad jumps all over this, and he will, this is ridiculous. Are you actually claiming that atheist scholars are not “necessarily” biased under your own set of criteria? I think both sides will agree here, that there is a lot of good scholarship to be found on both sides of the fence.

Nomad, my only question to you is this: I think we can all (?) agree that historical study is a soft science – I don’t think it would be that unreasonable to state that it is really hard to pin down with a relatively high percentage what anyone believes through fragments of their works that have been interpretated over and over again.

For example, if all of Nietzsche’s writings were destroyed except for exerts from The Anti-Christ and Beyond Good and Evil, you could certainly get a coherent idea of what Nietzsche might have believed. The evidence might even sway heavily in favor one direction over another. However, more than likely you would get the wrong idea of what Nietzsche really taught and believed.

Instead of blabbering on, my question to you is this: give than it is hard to really prove anything with historical scholarship (or get to near what might be considered 90% certainty), isn’t it rather…presumptuous? to base your whole system of beliefs based on historical events that we can’t really know much about? (Gawd, I hope that came out clear… )

I think the real issue that is batted around here is whether or not anything can be known from 2000 years ago with enough certainty that you could base your whole entire ideology on it. It doesn’t matter whether Socrates existed or not – what he says carries the same weight.

Do you really think that it is all that illogical that so many skeptics disagree with you on many scholarly issues, such as the dating of acts or luke.

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: pug846 ]

Nomad

Hello pug. Thank you for your comments to Koy. I have long since given up on having a rational discussion with him, so I appreciate your calling him to task for his latest nonsense. Now for your questions:

First, of course history is a soft science. That is why I mentioned that the opinions of experts can count as evidence, albeit with the qualifier that the opinion being offered can still be wrong. At the same time, I hope you are not equating fragments of ancient texts with an absense of reasonably reliable textual evidence on what the books of the Bible actually said in their original form. We do have a fairly good idea of what they wrote, and while we are always prepared to revise them as new evidence presents itself, even finds like the DSS have not radically changed the over all text of the Bible. Bottom line, I think we can be fairly confident textually about what we have in the Bible. If it helps, think of the science of textual criticism as being very similar to that of paleontology. Both build models from fragments, and must rely on comparison, and always be open to new evidence. Yet our confidence in what the scientists in both fields has uncovered thus far is justified. they do seem to know what they are doing, even if a few of them get more than a little carried away with their evidence and conclusions.

The problem with your example, as I see it, is that you are equating the Bible (I assume) with the works of a single man. The Bible is written by a large number of authors, and over a very very long period of time, and we do not have mere fragments here and there of their texts. We have quite a large amount of pretty reliable MSS, allowing us to have considerable confidence in what they wrote.

I think I understand what you are saying here pug, and to be honest, my faith is not rooted in the dating of the Gospels, nor most of the other interesting questions we may pursue here on these boards. That is why I do not view what I do here as evangelizing (something I am notoriously bad at in any event). I come here to ask and answer questions, and to show that there are reasons for accepting Christian stories and understandings of many events as portrayed in the Bible. I do not expect everyone to be convinced by my arguments, but do see value in at least offering them for consideration. I also come here to challenge some of the comfortable conventional wisdoms held by many sceptics that I have met. Finally, I try to point out the really bad arguments sometimes put forward against Christianity and the Bible, and considered to be valid largely because many people do not know very much about the argument until they first encounter it here (see for example the discussion on Doherty's theories, or those of the Homeric Epics and GMark).

So, does my faith depend on Mark being authored c. 60AD? Or that Luke really did know Paul? Or that various MSS could be dated to the 1st or 2nd or 3rd Century? No. Such a faith would be a pretty shallow thing. But, at the same time, a bad argument is a bad argument, and when I encounter them, I do what I can to refute them.

Actually, like all people, my beliefs are rooted in those things that make sense to me, based on my own experiences, investigations, and inquiries. I agree that much of ancient history will remain a mystery to us, but probably not nearly as much of it is as unknowable and inpenetrable as many have come to believe.

People are free to dispute what they wish, and to believe whatever they wlike. At the same time, if they cannot defend their beliefs rationally, then I will call them on it. And if they are inconsistent in the things that they choose to believe (especially when the principle criteria of belief appears to be, is it a religious claim or not), then I am interested in exploring this as well. To me, such an arbitrary double standard is not logical.

Thanks again for your thoughts pug.

Peace,

Nomad