Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gregor · 06-12-2008, 11:48 AM

I applaud Amaleq's stick-to-it-iveness in trying to hammer logic into this debate. I would probably give up just trying to overlook the horrible grammar.

The argument itself is not convincing. "Just so" stories are not particularly persuasive.

Half-Life · 06-12-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Unless you want to argue that the disciples and the women were stupid beyond belief, despite hanging out with Jesus for 3 years.

Stupid may not be the word. But look how they spent those years.

Jesus says he'll do something.
The disciples say no way.
Jesus says way.
Jesus does what he said he'd do.
Disciples are poleaxed.
time passes.
Repeat for each miracle.

At no point do any of them say, Whoa, guys, if Jesus-man says he can do it, i'm beginning to believe he can do it.

In modern literature, you couldn't get away with such behavior unless the characters were, indeed, dumber than a bag of hammers. For the literary conventions of the time, it's possible you could have foils that never grew as characters during the duration of the novel.

I think it's quite in character for them to react this way.
Jesus is alive.
No way.
Way.
No freakin' WAY!
Way.
Prove it!
'Kay. Feel my Roman-holes.
No way!

It is quite interesting that not even God Himself could find a way to prove Himself with ease, even though he hand picked his disciples. So, Jesus knew that they would be doubting and he still uses them.

If this WAS modern literature, Jesus would stand up during the 5th act of the play and cry out "I can't take this stupidity anymore! I am tired of working miracles for your lazy asses when you guys don't even believe me. I calmed a storm in front of you guys and you still wondered how I did it. Has it ever occurred to any of you that I am God Himself?!?!?! *calmly sits down in a chair* OK, I'm back to normal. Let's get this play going again."

Stephen T-B · 06-12-2008, 12:57 PM

An interesting point from Half-Life: those who witnessed the miracles - the walking on the water, the loaves and fishes, the water into wine, the raising of Lazarus, the Gadarenes swine etc etc still had difficulty believing Christ had been raised from the dead.
So how come anyone is supposed to believe it 2000 years later when all they've got is garbled accounts of it - so garbled that not even a True Believer like our very own Dr Lazer Blast can make sense of it without leaping to fantastic conclusions?
And our punishment for not believing it?
An eternity of hellish torment.

Stephen T-B · 06-12-2008, 01:31 PM

...back on topic.
It is quite clear to me, after reading Dr Lazer Blast's quite ingenious "knitting" together of all the accounts - or rather some of them - that he regards the completed article to be such as would keep out a chill wind, whereas if anyone were to try putting it on, it would fall in little pieces around his feet, and trip him up when he tried to walk away from it.
However, the mere fact that it satisfies Dr Lazer Blast explains, I suppose. how this former "atheist" was able to read the Bible (or have some it expounded to him) and believe at once that it is the Word of God, and that one of its characters, a demi-god born of a virgin, vuluntarily had itself killed for the benefit of humanity and after an interval of either two or three days - the time line isn't agreed upon in this Word of God - muddled everyone who witnessed it by turning up in the flesh.
He was also able to believe that this "resurrected" demi-god was then seen to rise into heaven where it was also seen sitting on the right hand of god.
In comparison to all this, believing his "knitted-up" account of the Resurrection stories is more than a bunch of loose threads laid in a pile is, I suppose, child's play.

dr lazer blast · 06-12-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

...back on topic.
It is quite clear to me, after reading Dr Lazer Blast's quite ingenious "knitting" together of all the accounts - or rather some of them - that he regards the completed article to be such as would keep out a chill wind, whereas if anyone were to try putting it on, it would fall in little pieces around his feet, and trip him up when he tried to walk away from it.
However, the mere fact that it satisfies Dr Lazer Blast explains, I suppose. how this former "atheist" was able to read the Bible (or have some it expounded to him) and believe at once that it is the Word of God, and that one of its characters, a demi-god born of a virgin, vuluntarily had itself killed for the benefit of humanity and after an interval of either two or three days - the time line isn't agreed upon in this Word of God - muddled everyone who witnessed it by turning up in the flesh.
He was also able to believe that this "resurrected" demi-god was then seen to rise into heaven where it was also seen sitting on the right hand of god.
In comparison to all this, believing his "knitted-up" account of the Resurrection stories is more than a bunch of loose threads laid in a pile is, I suppose, child's play.

Looks like someone needs to go back through the thread and see why I am knitting' the story in the first place. I don't care if you believe it or not, that isn't the point. The point is to explain what happened on easter without omitting a single detail.

Quote:

From Dan Barker's book, "Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist":

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Obviously I am not going to get it perfect on the first time written, which is why we're having the discussion about certain 'details' so whether you believe it actually happened is beside the point. I suggest you go back and do some reading.

Stephen T-B · 06-12-2008, 02:12 PM

"The point is to explain what happened on easter without omitting a single detail." (DLB)
The point is you haven't done it.

dr lazer blast · 06-12-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

"The point is to explain what happened on easter without omitting a single detail." (DLB)
The point is you haven't done it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Obviously I am not going to get it perfect on the first time written, which is why we're having the discussion about certain 'details'

If scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc. can get things wrong the first time, why can't I? are you biased against me? do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?

Toto · 06-12-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

"The point is to explain what happened on easter without omitting a single detail." (DLB)
The point is you haven't done it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Obviously I am not going to get it perfect on the first time written, which is why we're having the discussion about certain 'details'

If scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc. can get things wrong the first time, why can't I? are you biased against me? do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?

Are you trying to say that the fact that you failed on your first try means that you will succeed on your Nth try (where N is a finite number??) Is this some sort of Christian Math? Are you the Little Engine that Could of apologetics?

No one has successfully met the Barker Challenge. Why do you think you can?

dr lazer blast · 06-12-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you trying to say that the fact that you failed on your first try means that you will succeed on your Nth try (where N is a finite number??) Is this some sort of Christian Math? Are you the Little Engine that Could of apologetics?

No one has successfully met the Barker Challenge. Why do you think you can?

do you care to answer the question? or are you just going to make assumptions and stawman arguments? because I am not asserting I will make it on the Nth try, I am asserting that It will not be perfect on the FIRST TRY. Your straw man arguments are ridiculous, so please go ahead and answer the question. I'll bold it for you.

If scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc. can get things wrong the first time, why can't I? are you biased against me? do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?

Stephen T-B · 06-12-2008, 02:56 PM

"...are you biased against me?" (DLB)
No.
".. do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?" (DLB)
Yes.
"scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc" are concerned with activities which do not involve all-powerful supernatural entities like the Biblical god.
If this all-powerful supernatural entity is what it's cracked up to be, all you'd need to do is pray and you'd have knitted up this entire mess in one easy go, and so completely that every atheist reading it would just have had to stand back and say "Wow! So that's the Barker Challenge succesfully dealt with!"
Instead of which we see you scrabbling around asking for god knows (we certainly don't) how many chances to make a decent fist of it.

This is the Word of God isn't it?
If God can't straighten it out, do you really think you can?

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

06-12-2008, 11:48 AM	#181
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	I applaud Amaleq's stick-to-it-iveness in trying to hammer logic into this debate. I would probably give up just trying to overlook the horrible grammar. The argument itself is not convincing. "Just so" stories are not particularly persuasive.

06-12-2008, 12:57 PM	#183
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	An interesting point from Half-Life: those who witnessed the miracles - the walking on the water, the loaves and fishes, the water into wine, the raising of Lazarus, the Gadarenes swine etc etc still had difficulty believing Christ had been raised from the dead. So how come anyone is supposed to believe it 2000 years later when all they've got is garbled accounts of it - so garbled that not even a True Believer like our very own Dr Lazer Blast can make sense of it without leaping to fantastic conclusions? And our punishment for not believing it? An eternity of hellish torment.

06-12-2008, 01:31 PM	#184
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	...back on topic. It is quite clear to me, after reading Dr Lazer Blast's quite ingenious "knitting" together of all the accounts - or rather some of them - that he regards the completed article to be such as would keep out a chill wind, whereas if anyone were to try putting it on, it would fall in little pieces around his feet, and trip him up when he tried to walk away from it. However, the mere fact that it satisfies Dr Lazer Blast explains, I suppose. how this former "atheist" was able to read the Bible (or have some it expounded to him) and believe at once that it is the Word of God, and that one of its characters, a demi-god born of a virgin, vuluntarily had itself killed for the benefit of humanity and after an interval of either two or three days - the time line isn't agreed upon in this Word of God - muddled everyone who witnessed it by turning up in the flesh. He was also able to believe that this "resurrected" demi-god was then seen to rise into heaven where it was also seen sitting on the right hand of god. In comparison to all this, believing his "knitted-up" account of the Resurrection stories is more than a bunch of loose threads laid in a pile is, I suppose, child's play.

06-12-2008, 02:12 PM	#186
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	"The point is to explain what happened on easter without omitting a single detail." (DLB) The point is you haven't done it.

06-12-2008, 02:56 PM	#190
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	"...are you biased against me?" (DLB) No. ".. do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?" (DLB) Yes. "scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc" are concerned with activities which do not involve all-powerful supernatural entities like the Biblical god. If this all-powerful supernatural entity is what it's cracked up to be, all you'd need to do is pray and you'd have knitted up this entire mess in one easy go, and so completely that every atheist reading it would just have had to stand back and say "Wow! So that's the Barker Challenge succesfully dealt with!" Instead of which we see you scrabbling around asking for god knows (we certainly don't) how many chances to make a decent fist of it. This is the Word of God isn't it? If God can't straighten it out, do you really think you can?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.