Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromdownunder · 04-25-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

From Patriot7:
At the risk of a derailment to the evolution board, what is the case for a young earth view?

Wait while we get our popcorn and Coke before you post, as this should be very entertaining.

RED DAVE

I'll drink to that. Patriot7, please start a YEC thread on the Evolution board and put your best case forward.

Norm

cognac · 04-26-2006, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

The claims of traditional Christianity are not to revelation. They are to the empirical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in history and as God has revealed Himself through creation. Thus far we have been discussing the reliability of the historical evidence.

Interesting. So you don't believe the Bible is the "revealed" Word of God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Why do you think I haven't? Why is it that the assumption is I'm being "disengenuous"? I don't understand your line of questions. If I'm such a disengenous person, why are you continuing your communication with me?

Reread what I wrote. I didn't say you were disengenuous. I apologize for the convulations. Maybe that is why it was confusing. My basic question is why you think your religion has a privileged set of knowledge when the others do not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Cognac, I understand your position. And I admire it more then I do a position of religous pluralism that clearly violates the law of non-contradiction. All of the world religions contradict one another, so clearly they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong or only one of them is right.

Where they have supernatural claims, they are all wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

If the idea of exploring all of them is daunting, might I suggest to prioritize your investigation? Did Buddha claim to be God? Did Mohammed?

This is completely unnecessary.

Atheos · 04-26-2006, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Atheos,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You have an interesting background and I appreciate your well reasoned opinion.

Thank you ... thank you ... I'll be here all week...

I must say that I appreciate your ability to keep your cool when under fire from all around. Your willingness to debate these issues in hostile territory belies a firm commitment to those things you believe to be true. I respect that.

Quote:

I apologize for appearing to ignore your Sam Walton example. I did read it the first time, and thank you for expounding on it here. I didn't respond to it, because it didn't create a problem for me with regards to the topic at hand. I understand exactly what you're saying with that analogy. And all things being equal, if we were analyzing the NT in a vacuum, without mind to other evidence from nature, the sciences and other history, and my personal experience, I would agree with your conclusion. I just don't find the Bible compelling in "that way." Meaning, I don't think the Bible as it stands alone is compelling evidence for the supernatural.

I'd be interested in seeing some of the evidence from nature , science and history that support your conclusion that the supernatural exists. Honestly I am unaware of any such evidence.

Quote:

My experience has been that most of the world's population is pre-wired to seek God. If you're trying to make the case here that you aren't biased, I'm afraid I simply don't believe that. We are all biased. The question is, does your bias demand a very particular interpretation of the evidence as DTC's does. (Namely in the advancement of naturalism as a philosophy). Is it possible to think objectively and still be biased? I think the answer to that is clearly yes. If the goal is only to converse with people who aren't biased, then going to a university or taking night classes- enviornments filled with professors who are extremely biased would be the last thing we would do! Again, I respect your opinion, appreciate your experience and understand that your reasons for rejecting theism may go beyond the critiscm of the bible and the scope of our discussion here.

I'll readily admit that my opinion leans decidedly towards the naturalistic worldview now. I've been open about that all along. I disagree with your assumption that my opinion "demands" a particular interpretation of the evidence and having (virtually) known DTC for nearly two years I'm reluctant to believe he is so inclined, although I'm by no means certain about this.

You suggest that "most of the world's population is pre-wired to seek God". Considering the thousands of known gods mankind has invented over the years you would appear to be right. But your proposition is phrased in such a way as to affirm the consequent (begging the question). Are there possibly other explanations for this curious behavior of our species? Looking at this phenomenon more objectively I am inclined to speculate that homo-sapiens capacity for abstract thought created a niche in which religion could evolve and flourish. In its most basic sense religion began as a primordial denial of death -- specifically the denial that a beloved individual was really dead. The shaman assures the grieving widow that "his spirit goes on". The rest -- all the mind control, political hay, sacrifices designed to make a fat priesthood -- as they say, is gravy. Makes sense. Makes much better sense than the idea that we were created by an intelligent entity who's playing some wierd hiding game but expects us to pick the right myth out of thousands of possible ones, believe it with absolutely no corroborating evidence, and is prepared to damn the vast majority of souls who make the wrong choice to eternal and unimaginable punishment. But he loves us. :huh:

Quote:

In regards to extraordinary evidence, I think at the heart of the matter is a difference in approach. It is perhaps the fundamental difference. Do we assume the Gospels are true and then try and prove them false? Or do we assume them false and try to prove them true? There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both approaches and I find no compelling reason why freethinkers cannot assume one and then the other when carefully considering the empirical evidence. This is my purpose here. For the sake of our discussion I am attempting, in as much as I am able, to approach the subject matter as false.

You have to begin where you have to begin. I appreciate your willingness to dip yourself into the hostile world of freethinkers in order to test your faith. Just don't come here expecting mercy for your beliefs as there isn't much to go around in this place. I can only make suggestions. My suggestion is that you begin by comparing your particular religion with other competing religions, many of which make equally extrordinary claims. Does your particular religion honestly and objectively have some advantage over other religions? This isn't a popularity contest, it's a search for truth.

Is there a reason to believe that Yahweh exists that can't be applied to the Hindu gods Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna? Is there compelling evidence to believe that Jesus fed 5000 with five loaves and two fish but that Mohammad's food did not sing praises to Allah as he ate?

The problem is that no matter how you slice it you are dealing with extrordinary claims here. Extrordinary. And you yourself have admitted that extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof. An unsigned, undated document isn't very extrordinary. A handful of such documents that scholars have to creatively interpret just to get them to harmonize with each other doesn't do much for me either. Problem is that when the dust settles that's all you've got. The entire case for christianity rests on four anonymous documents that have to be creatively manipulated just to find them in agreement, and which contain certain errors that have been proven through rigorous archaeology. Everything else rests on mass appeal. There is no extrordinary evidence to support these extrordinary claims.

So in the end you're back where you started: Faith. Nothing more. If it works for you then stay with it. I have yet to see anything that would give me reason to loft these anonymous documents over the Greek myths, the Roman myths, the Babylonian myths, the Egyptian myths, the Ugaritic myths, the ... well ... you get my drift.

I snipped some other comments, dealing with interpretations of evidence. If you really want my thoughts on these issues I'll deal with them later. My thoughts are worth little more than you'll pay to get them.

Instead I'm going to conclude by addressing this last paragraph:

Quote:

Moving past that, this line of interpretation, this approach if you will, is similar to Toto's - that the early church father's were ideologically driven politicians. Ok, even from the other view - that the Gospels are true, this statement does not present a problem, because we already know everyone is biased. The important question is: did these men lie? The fact that men do lie, that we are prone to bending and spinning the facts to advance our causes does not automatically suggest that they did lie in this case. It doesn't logically follow that because men do lie that these men did lie. That evidence must come from somewhere else. Specifically, I would like to see empirical evidence of this - that is to say the notion that the early church father's were wild eyed liars can't simply come from our imagination or even our general knowledge of persons. Because if we are going to accept this as a fact of history based on that premise and line of reasoning, then we are only proving the premise of Christianity true - that all men are liars.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts prove nothing, but opinions are the backbone of this DB. There is a lot of room between "bending and spinning" and "wild eyed liars". Was Papias lying? Probably not. John the Presbyter might have told him that a man named Mark was a secretary of Peter and that Mark wrote Peter's sayings. Remember, nearly 60 years passed between the authoring of this anonymous document and the statement made by Papias. How many rumors about "who wrote this" might have circulated orally before Papias chose one that made the best sense to him and wrote it down?

Once again we're back to an unavoidable paradox. The books are anonymous. Unsigned. Undated. They tell of extrordinary things. Are you willing to accept such extrordinary claims from anonymous sources? Not many are. But once you attach an author to the document it suddenly becomes more plausible. That's how it works.

Wishful thinking can turn one generation's "I think so" into another generation's "I believe it" and into the next generation's "It's the truth". 60 years. Think about it.

-Atheos

darstec · 04-26-2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

It seems that you're wrong.

As the claims of the gospels involve the supernatural - specifically the resurrection of the dead, I don't consider this probable at all. In fact, I know of only one case that is reliably documented - that of Jesus Christ.

You should have given up while you were ahead, i.e. before your very first post. See in this very paragraph you just demonstrated you know little of your own bible. It "documents" several people that were resurrected from the dead, and your Joshua was not the first.

post tenebras lux · 04-26-2006, 08:00 AM

I'm kind of hoping that Patriot7 will demonstrate why the other instances of resurrection mentioned earlier in the bible don't count as being reliably documented, but that the case of Jesus Christ is reliably documented.

I admire people who can successfully pull off that kind of handbrake turn/backflip.

Patriot7 · 04-26-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

I listed the claims which have been disproven. You can read the book I referenced. And any good book on geology...

Thank you for the reference Kosh. Since you simply attached a reference without an argument or even a qualification from you, can I safely assume the author's words are considered the "bible" in your worldview? In otherwords, does the author make any points that you consider open for discussion?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2006, 09:10 AM

It isn't the authors' words that matter, but their evidence. Archaeology isn't religion. It doesn't rely on arguments from authority. You can examine the physical evidence for yourself.

Kosh · 04-26-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Thank you for the reference Kosh. Since you simply attached a reference without an argument or even a qualification from you, can I safely assume the author's words are considered the "bible" in your worldview? In otherwords, does the author make any points that you consider open for discussion?

You seem to insist on reading an awful lot between the lines, so you should listen to that oft used line from Star Wars: "You assume too much". (Either that, or this is yet another evasion technique to avoid continuing the topic).

I would suggest you read the book. The author's points are made as an authorititative expert on the archaeology of Palestine and Israel. His conclusions are drawn using the same modern archaeological techniques which you place so much trust in to discredit the TBOM. So if you have problems with them, you can start a thread. You may even do a search here in the archives, as we've discussed it before.

And of course, you have a second reference for similar work with similar conclusions.

Seems like you gots some reading to do....

Patriot7 · 04-26-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognac

Interesting. So you don't believe the Bible is the "revealed" Word of God?

I do and I think there are some good reasons for that conclusion. I think it's more reasonable to consider that it is a supernatural book then not. And I understand your worldview prohibits you from thinking in that category, so I would only be wasting my time to make that case for you wouldn't I?

But I will say this - I don't "worship" the bible as your suggesting I do. The view of scripture you're suggesting is actually a fundamental human flaw exposed in scripture which makes the object of faith and worship the method of communication (Scripture) and not the Communicator. The bible does not save me, the bible does not speak to me in the literal sense you're suggesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognac

My basic question is why you think your religion has a privileged set of knowledge when the others do not?

I don't. I think Christianity is true as a worldview because it corresponds to reality. I don't think it is privileged and I don't think my belief system is better then yours.

Christianity makes some basic claims about reality. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, presents them very clearly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Koukl

God
Christianity teaches that God is a person. He is both personal and transcendent. In other words, He is personal in that He has a will. He has emotions, after a fashion. He can communicate. He can create. He can do personal activities. He is an individual. But He is distinct from His creation, as opposed to being the same thing as His creation. Therefore, He is transcendent. Yet, He is somehow personally involved in His creation so that He is not isolated or closed out from the universe. He doesn't wind a clock and let it spin out. He is involved. So with regards to God, the fundamental Christian view is that God is a personal being who created the universe as something other than Himself, but who is involved with the universe, too.

You will probably notice by reflecting on this a little bit that we are already making some rather dramatic distinctions between Christianity and other religious viewpoints. For example, the notion that God is personal is in contra-distinction with many eastern world views that say that God is impersonal. To distinguish God from His creation is to distinguish theism from pantheism.

Creation
Pantheism says that God and creation are one. God is just all that is. God is the creation. God is the tree, the book, the river, the stone, and He is you and me and everyone else. Christianity would say that's not an accurate view of the world. The truth of the matter is that God is distinct from creation and He existed before anything else did. He created everything else that does exist. That distinguishes Christianity from eastern religions.

Christianity is also distinguished from the philosophies of naturalism and deism. Deism would hold that God created everything but He just wound it all up and is letting it run by itself. He is not intervening in the affairs of men. Naturalism would say that the universe is a closed system of cause and effect. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant because we are stuck with the laws of nature. That is all we can really know and they are the only things that cause anything in the universe right now.

In that regard, Christianity would take exception with eastern religions, naturalism and deism because Christianity says that God is different from his creation but is involved with it. It also would take exception with the view of naturalism saying the only thing that accounts for anything in the universe is natural law.

Man
Christianity goes further, though, in what it believes about man. What does the Bible teach about the nature of man? First, it says that man is different than all the rest of the creatures in the world. This would be over and against naturalism and evolution, of course, which teach that man is simply a highly- developed and well-evolved animal.

Man is made in the image of God and that has ramifications. He has a rational soul that has the capability of making moral choices, not just personal choices but moral choices, as well. He can be creative. He can do some of the things that God can do. Because man is made in the image of God, he has a different value than everything else in creation. Therefore, man is separate from the rest of creation in terms of his value. This is why justice is important to men. Man ought not be treated unjustly because he can reason morally, which allows him to make sense of something like justice.

These are things that follow from a Christian world view and don't seem to make a lot of sense in an atheistic world view, or an evolutionary world view, or even an eastern world view. They seem to make sense in a Christian world view. That is why the notion of justice in our country is founded on Judeo-Christianity. That's no accident. Justice relates to the idea that man is a moral creature, made in the image of God and ought to be treated justly.

Salvation
There is more, though, that the Christian world view says about the issue of man. It isn't only that man is made in the image of God so that he has a nobility about him, a beauty about him, and he can produce noble works. Something is also broken and twisted in man. He is not only noble, he is desperately fallen. He is broken in some way which is why he can do desperately evil things. Because he does evil, he is guilty before God's tribunal and he is worthy of punishment. God has provided a way for man to escape the punishment and that method of escape comes through God's mercy, expressed in forgiveness, made possible by Jesus.

Who is Jesus? Jesus is a man, but not an ordinary man. He is the incarnation of God Himself. He is a man who is fully God and fully human. As God, He accomplished something that no man could have accomplished--the salvation of mankind. That is why it is necessary for us to put our trust, faith and belief in the God/man Jesus Christ in order for us to be forgiven of our sins and be reconciled with the God who created everything.

That is basic, mere Christianity. A personal God, creating a world other than Himself. He placed man in the world--man who has transcendent value because he was made in the image of God. Man who also, because of his free moral choices, has become desperately evil and is guilty before God. Therefore, God made a way of man's rescue by becoming a man Himself, taking the punishment upon Himself and making it possible for men to be forgiven.

If you take any of those elements out, you don't have Christianity. You have some other religion. It may be a very nice religion, but it is not Christianity.

Your thoughts?

Mod's note: Koukl's apologetics are here

And here

Julian · 04-26-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

I do and I think there are some good reasons for that conclusion. I think it's more reasonable to consider that it is a supernatural book then not.

Can I ask which particular bible you consider to be the revealed word of god? Is it Textus Receptus? UBS4/NA27? Majority? Byzantine? Westcott-Hort? Stephanus? Scrivener? The complutensian Polyglot? Any particular translation? Which one did god choose?

Julian

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

04-26-2006, 08:00 AM	#295
post tenebras lux Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva Posts: 5,756	I'm kind of hoping that Patriot7 will demonstrate why the other instances of resurrection mentioned earlier in the bible don't count as being reliably documented, but that the case of Jesus Christ is reliably documented. I admire people who can successfully pull off that kind of handbrake turn/backflip.

04-26-2006, 09:10 AM	#297
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It isn't the authors' words that matter, but their evidence. Archaeology isn't religion. It doesn't rely on arguments from authority. You can examine the physical evidence for yourself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.