Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 04-11-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mochaloca:
<sidebar>

Mochaloca,

Since you've got a good understanding of
legalease (sp?) and appear to be rather
objective, have you ever read Earl Doherty's
"Challenging the Verdict" piece refuting
the "Case for Christ"?

Would be good to have you give a thorough
review from a legal perspective, since that's
how he presents it. And we should probably
start a new thread on it if you want to...

Here's the link:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/cgi-bin/offsite?http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/StrobelIntro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/cgi-bin/offsite?http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/StrobelIntro.htm</a>

Vampyroteuthis · 04-11-2002, 07:03 PM

Okay! I'm new here and I am way behind everyone here in research but I do have some "common sense". While not the best source for giving an opinion...it's all I have right now!

I have been reading this thread and the thing that strikes me the most is that the bible is to be followed in it's literal sense as in the case of the ten commandments but other parts are to be interpreted and not to be taken literally. I think I missed the handbook that comes with the bible outlining these rules of reading. Don't the "believers" see how twisted this thinking is? Are people really that blind to this? I just don't understand. I better stick around so I can learn something!

Thanks for putting up with me!

Aimee

Kosh · 04-12-2002, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by akkhir:
 I think I missed the handbook that comes with the bible outlining these rules of reading. Don't the "believers" see how twisted this thinking is?

Go to you local college bookstore and ask
for the Bible Cliff Notes...

Whenever we try to nail the liberals down on
this one, they avoid the whole topic. In reality,
it's just backpeddling. They believed the ENTIRE
bible should be taken literally, until science
blatantly proves them wrong. Then they start
trying to salvage what they can. It's really
nothing more than people trying desparately to
reconcile they're religious pre-disposition
("But, mommy couldn't have lied to me about this!)
with cold hard reality.So they bend over
backwards to interpret the Bible without having
to abandon the whole thing.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-12-2002, 05:39 AM

Good points Mocha, though, just for the record, I meant hearsay testimony like we find alleged in the gospels is inadmissable and inherently useless. I should have qualified that more directly.

Alexis Comnenus · 04-12-2002, 06:15 AM

Kosh, this is wrong:

Quote:

They believed the ENTIRE
bible should be taken literally, until science
blatantly proves them wrong.

Here is St Augustine in the fifth century:

"In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative."

On Christian Doctrine 3.10.14

Biblical literalism is, I understand, a modern idea and not, as you and others seem to imply, part of Christian tradition.

Regards

Alex

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-12-2002, 06:44 AM

Alexis--

I see...

So, who here dares to second guess what God meant, either figuratively or literally?

Pretty goddamned big balls, wouldn't you say?

Seriously, though, enough with that horseshit. Either the book is an historical account of factual events or it is not.

If you accept that a God exists and trifurcated and resurrected and walked on water and changed water into wine, etc., etc., etc., then why would you not accept a literal Genesis and a literal Revelations, or vice versa? Personal whim?

This, above all else posted here, grossly exceeds the standard of reasonableness we have all been bandying about, IMO. What you've just said (and Augustine before you) is that the Bible is just magically exempt from any kind of rigid formalcy simply because "we say so," but really because, if not, people would immediately see what a blatant fiction it all is.

That is precisely the opposite of reasonable and flies directly in the face of both common sense and logic. Above all else "God's words" should be the most stringently factual!

The very idea that THE almighty creator's words and recorded actions are to be just haphazzardly considered to be factual based on cult apologetics and the intellectual fraud of desperate, superstitious men is just too insulting to be accepted, either by us, or, I would posit, by any alleged creator.

After all, if Augustine can speculate about what God is or is not "thinking" in regard to his Logos, then so can we.

So, again, either we approach this question from a standpoint of factual documentation of actual events in the manner of eyewitness testimony (granting the hearsay for the sake of argument), or we forget all about it and just call it what it so obviously is: fiction.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

Dark Jedi · 04-12-2002, 07:20 AM

Koyaanisqatsi,

You may wish to tone the language down a notch...

Atticus_Finch · 04-12-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mochaloca:
I was enjoying this thread as an observer, but now feel compelled to put my 2 cents in. I may as well confess up front that I have a pet peeve of people using legal terminolgy incorrectly. This seems to have happened here involving the issue of the chronology of a text in Matthew (IIRC).

IMO, Atticus has attempted to introduce a legal concept involving circumstantial evidence by substituting the term "non-contradictory" for "reasonable." (The rule is that if you have two inferences that you may draw from a fact and one is reasonable as to guilt or innocence and the other is unreasonable as to guilt or innocence, you must find the reasonable inference to be true and reject the unreasonable. If you have two reasonable inferences both of which point to guilt or innocence, you must choose the inference which points to innocence).

This rule applies to a criminal case where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. (Nobody knows what reasonable doubt really is, but we all pretend that we do).

IMO, Atticus' "fair analysis" is something he just made up. The real test would be; is it reasonable to read the text as being chronological?

Koy is incorrect is stating that all hearsay is inadmissible & inherently unreliable. Many people would probably be surprised to find out that there are numerous exceptions to the "hearsay" rule. Having said that, there does not appear to be any exceptions applicable to this issue. In fact the bible as a whole would be considered hearsay and would be inadmissible to prove any factual issues contained therein (how's that for legalese?).

However, if we narrow the issue in this case to whether or not the text is chronological, we can consider it for that purpose only.

The evidence would start with the plain language of the text itself (I am assuming that everyone is in agreement about the English translation of same). As Atticus has the burden to prove that the text is not chronological,and therefore not contradictory to the other texts, he cannot take advantage of any doubt. If there is any doubt,it must be resolved in favor of the text being chronological, and therefore contradictory.

Apparently, Atticus is calling on himself as a witness to prove that the text is a narrative that is not chronological. He is merely stating the assertion is a "reasonable possibility." Because there is nothing to show why we should look beyond the plain languange of the text, any judge would suppress this "testimony" on the basis of an objection as to speculation. (Remember were applying courtroom standards)!

Therefore, IMO, a neutral jury (if you could find one) would have no choice but to find that the text was chronological and therefore contradictory to the other passages in the bible purporting to relate the same facts.

M.

Actually, the rule I am applying has nothing to do with circumstantial evidence. It is a maxim of statutory construction.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones · 04-12-2002, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
It is a maxim of statutory construction.

How, pray tell, does an individual in your position apply methods of statutory construction to the bible?

There are few, if any, available antecedent sources, aside from an assortment of folktales and mythology from which considerable portions of the bible are derived.

Application of accepted methods of statutory construction will likely undermine, not support, your case. I sense a considerable amount of retrojecting in the works, which may lead to a wild (and entertaining!) expansion of the apologetic techniques you've already proposed.

However, when you do apply statutory construction to the text of the bible, we expect citations from the relevant caselaw to support your methodology.

hezekiah jones · 04-12-2002, 02:42 PM

So everyone, get out your bibles, your Black's, your Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, your Emanuel's Outlines, and log on to Lexis-Nexis for the next round of "Apologetics with Atticus F."

04-12-2002, 06:44 AM	#76
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Alexis-- I see... So, who here dares to second guess what God meant, either figuratively or literally? Pretty goddamned big balls, wouldn't you say? Seriously, though, enough with that horseshit. Either the book is an historical account of factual events or it is not. If you accept that a God exists and trifurcated and resurrected and walked on water and changed water into wine, etc., etc., etc., then why would you not accept a literal Genesis and a literal Revelations, or vice versa? Personal whim? This, above all else posted here, grossly exceeds the standard of reasonableness we have all been bandying about, IMO. What you've just said (and Augustine before you) is that the Bible is just magically exempt from any kind of rigid formalcy simply because "we say so," but really because, if not, people would immediately see what a blatant fiction it all is. That is precisely the opposite of reasonable and flies directly in the face of both common sense and logic. Above all else "God's words" should be the most stringently factual! The very idea that THE almighty creator's words and recorded actions are to be just haphazzardly considered to be factual based on cult apologetics and the intellectual fraud of desperate, superstitious men is just too insulting to be accepted, either by us, or, I would posit, by any alleged creator. After all, if Augustine can speculate about what God is or is not "thinking" in regard to his Logos, then so can we. So, again, either we approach this question from a standpoint of factual documentation of actual events in the manner of eyewitness testimony (granting the hearsay for the sake of argument), or we forget all about it and just call it what it so obviously is: fiction. [ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

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

04-11-2002, 07:03 PM	#72
Vampyroteuthis Contributor Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 14,915	Okay! I'm new here and I am way behind everyone here in research but I do have some "common sense". While not the best source for giving an opinion...it's all I have right now! I have been reading this thread and the thing that strikes me the most is that the bible is to be followed in it's literal sense as in the case of the ten commandments but other parts are to be interpreted and not to be taken literally. I think I missed the handbook that comes with the bible outlining these rules of reading. Don't the "believers" see how twisted this thinking is? Are people really that blind to this? I just don't understand. I better stick around so I can learn something! Thanks for putting up with me! Aimee

04-12-2002, 05:39 AM	#74
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Good points Mocha, though, just for the record, I meant hearsay testimony like we find alleged in the gospels is inadmissable and inherently useless. I should have qualified that more directly.

04-12-2002, 07:20 AM	#77
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	Koyaanisqatsi, You may wish to tone the language down a notch...

04-12-2002, 02:42 PM	#80
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	So everyone, get out your bibles, your Black's, your Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, your Emanuel's Outlines, and log on to Lexis-Nexis for the next round of "Apologetics with Atticus F."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.