Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 12-07-2002, 07:30 PM

Diana --

I don't think we have been the ones to drag this discussion down. JohnV did that all by his lonesome. I think the infidel response has been pertinent and to the point.

CX · 12-07-2002, 09:31 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnV:
[QB]Re: Kosh, more reading difficulties
to all. I have a wicked bad cold and really am in no mood to have to start editing posts; something which I have to date never done and has not, to my knowledge, been done by another moderator during my tenure here. Let's stick to the arguments and leave comments about invidual's reading competence or lack thereof out of it. Thanks.

CX - BC&A Moderator

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 01:16 AM

Re: diana

Quote:

So if Luke states that the two men were sitting where the body had lain, and Mark reports seeing one man and makes no mention of the other, what conclusion should we draw from this?

That Mark is only aware of one of them, or for some reason was only focussing on one of them.

What other conclusion can we draw? That they each independently invented their accounts?

Quote:

You keep forgetting that they were sitting together wearing shiny white raiment. It isn't like Mark just missed seeing one.

What choices does this leave you with? They weren't even in motion--which is arguably harder to count. It was daylight. They glowed.

There they were. Two angelic light bulbs. Did he just not see one?

First, neither Mark nor Luke saw anything.

Second, the angels were in a tomb. It is plausible that the women in front saw two angels, while those behind could only see one.

Third, again, it may merely be a matter of focus.

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 01:49 AM

Re: David Bowden

Quote:

John, by that logic, we remain free to postulate the arrival of 7,000 seraphim, homage to the freshly-risen Christ by a reincarnation of Buddha, and a musical dance number by the guards before they fall down as dead men.

Yes, you're free to postulate that. Since we have four accounts, though, and none of them mention any of these things, no reasonable person is going to entertain your postulation for very long.

Quote:

Breaking up Matthew's chronology so as to make it seem that the women didn't witness the angel's arrival is just silly, and it opens the door to any number of insertions in any sentence of scripture that isn't qualified with "only" before each number of people present, and "immediately" or some other time-specific word between events.

No, not in "any sentence of scripture." This opens the door to insertions in cases of multiple accounts of the same event. IOW, normal interpretation, just as we did with Barker's challenge itself.

Quote:

This would open scripture to any number of chaotic interpretations. Give Matthew and the others (and their first audiences) their due; each of these accounts was meant to be the whole story - don't keep shoehorning events (or invented plot elements) into any unguarded spot in the various timelines, just to make their stories agree.

Why shouldn't I do that - the challenge permits it:

Quote:

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted.

I didn't set apart additional explanation in parentheses, but I think you can figure it out.

So, why are you attempting to change the conditions of the challenge now? I must be doing pretty good, otherwise there'd be no need for you to try to change things!

Quote:

Actually, I recall you having a problem with it on the first page of this thread, JohnV. Enough of a problem that you seemed unable to understand which time-frame someone was supposed to be incorporating into the challenge.

It's called the socratic method - questioning people in order to lead them to a point. I thought I made this clear when I said:

"I agree. In fact, I doubt that anyone else even noticed, which was my point - when two or more passages speak of the same thing in different levels of detail, we tend to interpret the more detailed as the more accurate, and the less detailed as a summary. We don't yell "Contradiction!" Using this method of interpretation on the Gospel accounts of Easter, most of Barker's objections dry up."

Quote:

But do keep in mind that it was admitted that Barker made an error, and thereby contradicted himself, and that some of his text had to be disregarded.

And yet, no one noticed this until I pointed it out. This made my point that differences due to level of detail are not considered contradictions.

Quote:

Once again, by that criterion, anything in scripture that's not specifically time-dated isn't fixed in time, even by the context given by a particular writer. So in, for instance, Genesis ch 22, when Abraham sets out to sacrifice his son Isaac, it's technically open to interpretation whether the space between verses 10 and 11 amount to just a moment, or to the period of time required for Abraham to slay his son, return home, have another child by Sarah, re-name him Isaac in honor of the first one, get challenged again by God, pursue the same course, only to have God intervene this time.

Hey, great analogy! ROFL

Quote:

What I've just written is, by your criteria, a scenario that is cannot be thrown out of the realm of possibility, since scripture isn't particular enough in its language to prevent such an insertion.

True. THe challenge just asked for one plausible scenario, though, and did not say that the methodology used in constructing that scenario must be equally applicable to all of scripture.

Again, we see you attempting to change the conditions - presumably because I satisfied the initial conditions, and you don't want to admit it!

Quote:

Your evaluation of my Genesis scenario's likelihood is probably very close to my evaluation of your harmonization's likelihood. And for good reason - none of the writers give their readers any hint that your harmonization's events were looping through their resurrection stories,

I was asked for one plausible scenario, and I gave it. Crying foul now does you no good!

Quote:

So my objection to your harmonization stands

If you say so. This line of objection has nothing to do with the initial challenge, though, so I don't really care.

Quote:

Both of the two women Matthew mentioned encountered the angel. Then they encountered Jesus. Nothing in Matthew or any other gospel account shows Mary Magdalene leaving the group of women, and later rejoining them.

You're right - but I'm allowed to give additional explanation in the conditions of the challenge, which you seem intent on changing.

Quote:

You are inventing that element in order to gloss over the clear contradictions in the plain language of each account.

Yes, I'm inventing it - I'm allowed to. You're attempting to change the conditions after the challenge is already well under way.

Quote:

Mary Magdalene belongs to that set of women named in Matthew 28:1. Matthew never divides her from that set, nor does any other gospel writer. Only you do that, JohnV.

Yep, and I'm allowed to.

Quote:

So the burden of evidence is on your harmonization, John. [b]Show us where scripture has Mary leaving and rejoining the group of women, or admit that one scripture tells one story about her that doesn't jive with another scripture's account unless you add plot twists not mentioned in scripture.

Sure, I'll admit it. I'm allowed to add additional explanation under the conditions of the challenge. My account only needs to be plausible. A woman walking away from a group is plausible.

Quote:

Before I can allow that insertion to stand...

Plausible insertions are allowed under the conditions of the challenge. I do not need your express permission, nor the express permission of Major League Baseball or its broadcasting affiliates.

So, your post boils down to your attempt to change the rules after the game is already under way.

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 01:56 AM

Re: Family Man

Quote:

I see another problem with this. Presumably, these accounts are coming from people viewing things from different vantage points. In addition, it almost certainly happened at great speed. That these witnesses reported different things is quite understandable.

Sure is.

Quote:

In the gospel accounts, however, all the women are in one group -- i.e. share the same vantage point

Do we know the size of the entrance to the tomb, or the layout of the tomb relative to the entrance? No, we do not. So, you're not justified in assuming that all the women had the same vantage point.

Quote:

There is no excuse for the differing claims.

Really? How about emotion? Have you never heard of emotion clouding one's recollection of an event, or are you forgetting what these women had just been through, and are now going through?

Minor differences in accounts are very excusable when considering the emotional state of these women.

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 02:06 AM

Re: Butters

Quote:

With all due respect, yes he is wrong. The challenge is laid out in clear language, so even a Christian could understand it.

If someone just read the opening paragraph:

"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."

would they take it to include events occurring after Easter day?

Quote:

If you read the entire text, you could understand it.

Yes, and if you read all four gospel accounts, you can understand them.

Quote:

Why is that? Are you saying that an account must be exhaustive in order to be credible? Tht's pretty ridiculous. Hehe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are just yanking our chain now. No one is stupid enough to claim that forgeting to mention the apperance of an Angel does not make a writer uncredible. I am going on the record to state.
YES That does make them uncredible.

Is this a general rule, or is it ad hoc for this discussion?

Quote:

Yes- if one person reports two men and another reports three, something is wrong.
One is lying, or was not even there. One of the accounts are wrong.

I'd say you're in a very slim minority with that view.

Quote:

In the real world,when the cop found out from another source that there were indeed three men, not to, he should realize that the person he interviewed gave a FALSE statement. Not "not exaustive". False. hehe

What if the person only saw two of them? It's not false then, is it? Can you think of a way that one person might see two, but another might see three? If not, you're possibly the biggest idiot I've ever met on the internet - and that's saying something!

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 02:12 AM

Re: Tuna

Quote:

As to how many angels were there- Since you can't seem to understand language, let's imagine you're right, that if the writers of an account don't say "only", it leaves things wide open for more people. WHY would the author do this? Every eyewitness saw BOTH angels, they were wearing shining dazzling garments, hard to miss them. So every eyewitness account would have had two angels in it. Why would the author who said there was "a man" there leave out the other one? It makes sense that each author might leave out some details, yes, but this isn't a detail that would be left out. It doesn't help condense your story any to say "a man" instead of "two men". As a writer trying to condense a story, you would look for details that are less important. Along these lines, you would either include both angels, or just leave out the angel detail altogether. It's just sheer incompetence to decide to leave one out.

Why might a witness say one? Let's see:

- could only see one from her particular vantage point

- was focussing on one for some reason. Perhaps only one spoke, or one spoke more than the other, or one seemed to have greater authority than the other.

- details clouded by emotion

- a slip of the tongue, which had no bearing on the main points of the story

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 02:18 AM

Re: diana

Quote:

For what it's worth, JohnV, I respect your efforts, and I apologize if I've done anything to bring this discussion down to the level it has dropped to.

Thank you!

Quote:

JohnV is a theist, although of what stripe, I haven't a clue.

Protestant inerrantist.

Quote:

I've learned that theists tend to dodge questions we think are pertinent.

Theists also have a limit to their time and patience. A theist outnumbered 5 to 1 might ignore points which he feels to be redundant. Go back and look - points are repeated frequently. Things might go better if certain people here would refrain from putting in their two cents when someone else has already put in substantially the same two cents.

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 02:44 AM

Re: Kosh

Quote:

It's not hard at all. The thread is here for us to read, and it's clear that johnV was the one to start poisoning the well.

Ok, let's read it. First, David Bowden goes way off topic and lists dozens of other alleged contradictions from the Bible. Is that considered polite here? Seemed pretty condescending to me, and certainly helped to change the tone of my response.

And here's a Kosh post in its entirety:

Quote:

...And I'll start the popcorn machine...

What was the point of that? Seemed to me you were saying that my participation has nothing more than entertainment value.

Actually, I see that that came before Bowden's condescending list. So, looks like Kosh was the first asshole. (I know, when it's you, it's just funny. When it's me, it's mean-spirited.)

And from Tuna:

Quote:

You make the 4th person I've issued the challenge to, in some form, and also the fourth person to try to avoid it by complaining about superficial things like presentation and attitude. Very strange.

That's pretty damn rude. Tuna did correct it when he saw that I was going to continue, but still, it was rude.

Next we have Butters:

Quote:

"He said "ON THIS DAY", if you have so much trouble reading what he said, how in the hell do you people even think you have a clue as to what some Jews wrote two thousand years ago!

SNIP

Of course the problem is simple. Anyone intelligent enough to discuss religion in a semi-rational way, is to smart to believe that it is not history. Anyone gulliable enough to believe it is, is not rational enough to make sense.

Butters also likes to take things off-topic:

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to what scripture?

IMO it was at this point that I was first rude:

Quote:

OK, that's the first contestant for off-topic post of the thread award. Anyone else wanna try?

Then Kosh characterizes a question of mine as a game:

Quote:

I see, we're going to play that game.

While MW labelled my position as "a trick":

Quote:

That's a pretty good trick...

So, in summary, Kosh you were partially correct - the thread is there for everyone to read. Other than that, though, you're an idiot, or blinded by bias. The atheists were clearly the first to "poison the well."

JohnV · 12-08-2002, 02:55 AM

A Summary

So far, there are two issues which require the Christian to ask for the benefit of the doubt:

1) Luke 12, as I noted in my opening

2) Mark 8 (and they said nothing to anyone)

Other points are conditional, and the conditions are far from satisfied:

3) IF "a young man" necessarily means ONLY ONE young man and absolutely precludes the possibility of there being two young men, THEN the gospels have a problem. IMO this argument is so silly I was surprised that it got so much play. I was hoping for better than this.

4) IF words mean something other than what they do mean, THEN the Bible has a problem. E.g., IF 'orderly' means 'exhaustive', THEN the Bible has a problem. Or, IF 'inspired' means 'exhaustive,' THEN the Bible has a problem.

I won't give DB's last charge - that I added to the accounts to make them fit together - a number, because as I showed, it went outside the conditions of the challenge.

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

12-07-2002, 07:30 PM	#101
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Diana -- I don't think we have been the ones to drag this discussion down. JohnV did that all by his lonesome. I think the infidel response has been pertinent and to the point.

12-07-2002, 09:31 PM	#102
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnV: [QB]Re: Kosh, more reading difficulties to all. I have a wicked bad cold and really am in no mood to have to start editing posts; something which I have to date never done and has not, to my knowledge, been done by another moderator during my tenure here. Let's stick to the arguments and leave comments about invidual's reading competence or lack thereof out of it. Thanks. CX - BC&A Moderator

12-08-2002, 02:55 AM	#110
JohnV Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: . Posts: 132	A Summary So far, there are two issues which require the Christian to ask for the benefit of the doubt: 1) Luke 12, as I noted in my opening 2) Mark 8 (and they said nothing to anyone) Other points are conditional, and the conditions are far from satisfied: 3) IF "a young man" necessarily means ONLY ONE young man and absolutely precludes the possibility of there being two young men, THEN the gospels have a problem. IMO this argument is so silly I was surprised that it got so much play. I was hoping for better than this. 4) IF words mean something other than what they do mean, THEN the Bible has a problem. E.g., IF 'orderly' means 'exhaustive', THEN the Bible has a problem. Or, IF 'inspired' means 'exhaustive,' THEN the Bible has a problem. I won't give DB's last charge - that I added to the accounts to make them fit together - a number, because as I showed, it went outside the conditions of the challenge.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.