Family Man

Just a couple of points (I think Vinnie did an excellent job deconstructing Metacrock's argument).

You, Metacrock, need to better understand the atheistic critique better.

First, arguments about contradictions are generally targetted at those Christians who make the "Bible must be taken literally" argument. If the shoe doesn't fit you, then the argument isn't designed to refute your position. It's more than a little ironic for you to claim we must understand your position better when it's clear that you can't even tell what our arguments are trying to refute.

Second, your solution to this problem, by noting that much of what appears to be contradictory is in fact probably literary or metaphorical is, in my opinion, has even worse implications than the simple-minded literalness of fundamentalists. In fact, Metacrock, I fully endorse your notion that these are literary devices. What leaves me scratching my head is why you think that bolsters your case that Jesus's story is reliable.

Consider the famous apparent contradiction of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Are they human mistakes that were meant as literary devices? Yes, absolutely I'd agree with that. But what was the purpose of putting obviously fabricated material in the story? As many biblical scholars will attest to, the whole purpose was to bolster the claims of Jesus's messiahship by linking him to David's line of descent. It is a case of reverse engineering: they believed Jesus was the messiah, so they went mining in the OT to come up with instances that they could fit Jesus into that would make him more believable as the Messiah. He's the Messiah, so this must have been his genealogy appears to be the logic. The problem now is, if they were willing to essentially make up material like that, what other things did they make up? Did Jesus really walk on water? Did he really feed the multitudes? Did he really raise the dead?....Was he really resurrected? The willingness to use literary devices call into question the truthfulness of the whole story because we can legitmately wonder if other claims designed for the same purpose are also false.

No, making the true claim that what are apparent contradictions in a literal interpretations are, in fact, literary in purpose does not make the bible reliable. On the contrary, it does just the opposite. That's the skeptical position, and one I've never seen addressed. Much easier, I imagine, to pretend that all we do is discuss contradictions with fundamentalists.

The second argument I find extremely dubious is the notion that, if the evidence is apparently unreliable, we can rely on it if there is a community that attests to it. How does that work? There are plenty of instances I can cite where communities of believers have adopted transparently false beliefs -- from small groups like Heaven's Gate or Branch Davidians to whole religions like Mormonism to whole nations like the belief in black inferiority in the United States or Aryan superiority in Germany in the 1930's. Communities are made up of humans, and humans, as you've noted, make errors. And in the absence of reliable evidence that the belief they adopted is a correct one, there is no good reason to presume that a community of believers is more likely to be correct than an individual who has done the same. And, in fact, given the psychological need for humans to belong to a group, group dynamics might make it more likely for a community to adopt a false belief, if the individuals perceive an apparent benefit for doing so (which is why the transformative power of religion is not a good argument for the truth value of that religion).

TySixtus

Metacrock, you contradict yourself constantly.

This was with regards towards your bible and your theology standing up to scientific criticism.

However, when I ask you how you can tell what parts of the bible are metaphor, and what parts aren't, you get all high-and-mighty on your learnin' and spout this:

So you use science to define and understand something that can't be measured with science?

Excuse me if I don't go convert right away...

Please, figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Ty

Weltall

<Edited> You're basically telling us "I presuppose that god exists, here are my (weak) arguments, now because I've assumed my conclusion it must be right and you should believe too". <Edited>
Then I presume you'll have no problems with reproducing it in another thread here so we can all look at it? Your page is so horribly laid out that I can't find this alleged harmonization, emphasis on alleged.

lpetrich

(on my swipe at Metacrock for using big, pretentious words...) The problem is not with big words per se but with using big words to seem like a Profound Thinker. And that's what you seem to be doing, Metacrock, throwing out impressive-sounding jargon terms in order to seem profound.

(Biblical errancy as divinely inspired...)
I was proposing that as an example of a ridiculous-looking but difficult-to-refute hypothesis.

Two VERY different ones.

(argument that Mary had been edited out of the Luke genealogy) Very ingenious. Though it does make Jesus Christ fit Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile a little better.

The resurrection accounts...Where?

And you might want to e-mail Dan Barker about your reconciliation; he will certainly want to know about it.

(All the history behind Greek mythology...)As in the Minotaur?

Heinrich Schliemann had used the geography described in the Iliad to find Troy -- and he succeeded. Knossos also turned out to be a real place, a very mazy sort of place and one with a central court likely used for sports involving bulls.

Where are the anachronisms there?

Like...

Which one?

(But according to Metacrock's argument about the New Testament, that would mean that the Olympians exist and ought to be worshipped) Which is what I'm doing -- seeing how it works with other religions and mythologies.

I'm sure that Metacrock meant this as satire, but it must be said that misspellings fit remarkably well with anti-intellectualism.

Javaman

I had decided not to respond as I thought you were mocking my statement that Mormons were Christians - which they certainly are. That is central to my counter-argument. I then realized you may have simply been laughing at my small 'Scotsman' joke instead. Is that true?

J-D

I can see where, if there were a God, it might be a good idea to get hold of his book (supposing he had one). But what makes you think there is a God?