Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tom Sawyer · 05-17-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I think he meant atheism as the falling dominoes.

Ya that's what I meant to, in the sense that Jesus being a real person wouldn't influence the arguments for or against Christianity. The non-supernatural aspects of the Bible being factual wouldn't make Christianity more tenable as a theology or atheism less tenable. The step between "Jesus was a real person" and "Christianity is a rational belief system" would still be an invalid step to take.

sotto voce · 05-17-2012, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I don't think that documentation showing that Jesus was a real person would cause any dominos related to Christianity as a theology to fall as a result of that anymore that documentation showing that Joesph Smith was a real person would cause dominos related to Mormon theology to fall as a result.

If it's a fact that the Romans went and executed some guy, all the supernatural stuff associated with him being a deity would still be just as fictional, the same way that the actual existence of a cult leader in the 19th century doesn't lead to it being the case that he had an angel give him some golden tablets.

So is equivalence of a revelation in private with public miracles not a category error?

Tom Sawyer · 05-17-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I don't think that documentation showing that Jesus was a real person would cause any dominos related to Christianity as a theology to fall as a result of that anymore that documentation showing that Joesph Smith was a real person would cause dominos related to Mormon theology to fall as a result.

If it's a fact that the Romans went and executed some guy, all the supernatural stuff associated with him being a deity would still be just as fictional, the same way that the actual existence of a cult leader in the 19th century doesn't lead to it being the case that he had an angel give him some golden tablets.

So is equivalence of a revelation in private with public miracles not a category error?

No, if he did the miracles and had actual revelations then that would be a completely different situation. That's why I made a deliberate point of specifying that I was referring to the nonsupernatural aspects of the story - specifically the trial that was being discussed.

If it could be shown that he did magic, then we'll know that there's something more there.

sotto voce · 05-17-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James_M

Quote:

He may have meant that all modern sects of Christianity trace themselves back to the Catholic Church.

I would agree that all thr western protestant denominations trace back to Roman Christianity. More specifically, that they broke away from it about a milleniia after its formation.(and used it's bible as a starting point for their own)

But, there were the Ebionites and a few others, I think that perhaps the Coptic Christians and Ethiopian Christians evolved independently of the Roman Catholic. These I believe even have their own early version (meaning pre-1000CE of the biblical canon).

Quote:

Or is that just another bit of cheap political mischief? It's either that, or grossly ignorant.

If that's what he meant, he must attend my beginners' course. Every Reformer ...
<SNIP>

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy in action !

Alert

No quote accreditation.

sotto voce · 05-17-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I don't think that documentation showing that Jesus was a real person would cause any dominos related to Christianity as a theology to fall as a result of that anymore that documentation showing that Joesph Smith was a real person would cause dominos related to Mormon theology to fall as a result.

If it's a fact that the Romans went and executed some guy, all the supernatural stuff associated with him being a deity would still be just as fictional, the same way that the actual existence of a cult leader in the 19th century doesn't lead to it being the case that he had an angel give him some golden tablets.

So is equivalence of a revelation in private with public miracles not a category error?

No

Then such an absurdly tilted playing field is tantamount to a confession of faith in HJ.

Moreover, the BoM is predicated on belief in HJ. It is utterly meaningless without it. (Though of course, unlike the 66 discrete books of the Bible, it is meaningless to any educated person.)

Tom Sawyer · 05-17-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Then such an absurdly tilted playing field is tantamount to a confession of faith in HJ.

Only if you ignore everything being said and base your conclusion of my point off of something unrelated to anything I posted.

It's saying that the HJ vs MJ debate is largely irrelevant navel gazing as regards the validity of Christian doctrine. If it's based on a real person whom they added supernatural aspects to or it's completely made up from scratch, the theological positions which stem from either one are just as wrong either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Moreover, the BoM is predicated on belief in HJ. It is utterly meaningless without it. (Though of course, unlike the 66 discrete books of the Bible, it is meaningless to any educated person.)

Ya, that's called over-extending the analogy.

sotto voce · 05-17-2012, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Then such an absurdly tilted playing field is tantamount to a confession of faith in HJ.

Only if you ignore everything being said

It's the only thing to do with circularity.

Lugubert · 05-17-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

catholic is a term used by all christians from before the time of luther. we happen to live in a reactionary protestant cultural milieu. as i am jewish i continue to use the correct terminology

"... all ... from before the time of luther" probably, yes, but not post Luther. Many if not all Protestant confessions substitute (synonyms for) "common" for "catholic". Examples are Swedish "allmännelig", Danish "almindelig", Norwegian "allmenn", German "allgemein", Dutch "algemene", ...

Adam · 05-17-2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I think he meant atheism as the falling dominoes.

Ya that's what I meant to, in the sense that Jesus being a real person wouldn't influence the arguments for or against Christianity. The non-supernatural aspects of the Bible being factual wouldn't make Christianity more tenable as a theology or atheism less tenable. The step between "Jesus was a real person" and "Christianity is a rational belief system" would still be an invalid step to take.

Agreed, so why is there such a refusal to acknowledge non-supernatural elements of the Bible?

By "falling dominoes" I meant whether members here fear that admitting one eyewitness would lead to acknowledging a second, a third, etc. I had conceded by constructing "Gospel According to the Atheists" that Atheist presuppositions do not preclude accepting the Passion Narrative, Q, L, and the Johannine discourses as historical, perhaps even eyewitness documents. That's why I'm teasing about whether admitting one eyewitness is barred by a fear it might lead on against Atheism. I have already claimed that MJ is refuted--is MJ such an article of faith here that evidence against it cannot be taken seriously in BC&H? Can't we discuss this rationally? It would seem that crushing religion, specifically Christianity, is so much the purpose here that no quarter can be given to anything that supports the underpinnings of Christianity.

Toto · 05-17-2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Ya that's what I meant to, in the sense that Jesus being a real person wouldn't influence the arguments for or against Christianity. The non-supernatural aspects of the Bible being factual wouldn't make Christianity more tenable as a theology or atheism less tenable. The step between "Jesus was a real person" and "Christianity is a rational belief system" would still be an invalid step to take.

Agreed, so why is there such a refusal to acknowledge non-supernatural elements of the Bible?

By "falling dominoes" I meant whether members here fear that admitting one eyewitness would lead to acknowledging a second, a third, etc. I had conceded by constructing "Gospel According to the Atheists" that Atheist presuppositions do not preclude accepting the Passion Narrative, Q, L, and the Johannine discourses as historical, perhaps even eyewitness documents. That's why I'm teasing about whether admitting one eyewitness is barred by a fear it might lead on against Atheism. I have already claimed that MJ is refuted--is MJ such an article of faith here that evidence against it cannot be taken seriously in BC&H? Can't we discuss this rationally? It would seem that crushing religion, specifically Christianity, is so much the purpose here that no quarter can be given to anything that supports the underpinnings of Christianity.

The question is whether you can discuss this rationally. You have not presented any real proof of eyewitnesses. You have not presented convincing arguments that MJ is "refuted." But you want to spend your time psychoanalyzing the rest of the forum for our unwillingness to see the brilliance of your argument. :huh:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.