Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 07-09-2003, 08:07 AM

Rational BAC,

You are a Christian, yes? You recently defended -- or rather, promised and then failed to defend -- your "Cherry Picking" acceptance of the bible; and I haven't seen any evidence of a change of heart since then.

So in what sense did you come to the topic convinced that it must be a "slam dunk" that there was no historical Jesus?

Perhaps I'm missing something important here, but this has the look of a set-up not especially rare in apologetics: the old, "X was sure that the atheists must be right, but then the evidence changed his mind!" gambit. I don't see much in your posts so far amounting to more than a protracted and disingenuous way of saying, "There was so a Jesus!"

If there's a subtlety I'm overlooking, though, I'm happy to be set straight.

[edit: cross-posted, but I'll let it stand.]

Rational BAC · 07-09-2003, 08:18 AM

You give me a lot more ability for cleverness than I really have.

There was no grand conspiracy to subvert this forum either consciously or unconsciously.

Why do you look for more than the obvious-?----------Am no Biblical scholar, saw many posts stating that there was no historical Jesus, and no refutation from either side.

Just asked a simple question to find out, expected a slam dunk from my experience on this forum and didn't get one.

End of story. I do not seek out conspiracy motives from others. Am surprised that anyone would make any more of this than is there.

You are looking for subtleties that do not exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

PS--------You will notice on the thread with the poll on this same subject that I asked which was correct "a historical Jesus" or "an historical Jesus"

I promise you that I had no ulterior motives in asking that question either. I did not know the answer beforehand on that one either.

It does seem to be a general concensus that the Brits pronounce it "an historical Jesus" (whether cockney or not) and Americans pronounce it "a historical Jesus".

Farrell Till · 07-09-2003, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC

I get so tired of hearing that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed from atheists.

Then why doesn't Rational BAC post the historical evidence that Jesus existed?

07-09-2003, 08:47 AM

Honoured scholar?!? What kind of rubbish is that?

If Till has that on his byeline, I want one too.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Rational BAC · 07-09-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by J. F. Till
Then why doesn't Rational BAC post the historical evidence that Jesus existed?

Because I am no Biblical scholar. All I know for sure now is that it is a controversial subject with no real resolution.

So far I have read back 7 pages on that old thread discussing this subject and it is still a cat fight.

Rational BAC · 07-09-2003, 09:22 AM

Oh----and by the way Clutch.

That Cherry Picking thread, which seems so long ago, in which I came in saying --in essence-- "I knew what was right and was going to kick everybody's buttt-- theist or non-theist" --------was an illusion on my part. And I freely admit it.

But, at least cut me some slack on that. Many newbies do that sort of thing.

I learned fairly quickly that there are many very intelligent and very knowledgable people on this forum both theist and non-theist. And many times I was outclassed. And that I had a lot more to learn than to "teach".

Not that I don't stick in my "2 cents" from time to time.

CX · 07-09-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Nonsense! I am often expressing disagreement with other non-theists, and other non-theists often disagree with what I say.

best,
Peter Kirby

I totally agree.

Clutch · 07-09-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Oh----and by the way Clutch.

That Cherry Picking thread, which seems so long ago, in which I came in saying --in essence-- "I knew what was right and was going to kick everybody's buttt-- theist or non-theist" --------was an illusion on my part. And I freely admit it.

But, at least cut me some slack on that. Many newbies do that sort of thing.

I learned fairly quickly that there are many very intelligent and very knowledgable people on this forum both theist and non-theist. And many times I was outclassed. And that I had a lot more to learn than to "teach".

Not that I don't stick in my "2 cents" from time to time.

Consider the slack cut. You don't have to be a newbie to make a mistake -- or rather, I don't!

Farrell Till · 07-09-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Honoured scholar?!? What kind of rubbish is that?

If Till has that on his byeline [sic], I want one too.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

I had not noticed that this byline was under my name. I didn't put this in my profile, so I don't know why it is there. I was made aware of it by a personal message to me this morning. I told the sender that I have never claimed to be a biblical scholar and really don't have the credentials to be called one. A real biblical scholar would have to have much more knowledge of ancient Near Eastern languages, culture, and history than I have.

I'm too much of a computer klutz to know how to remove it, but I would like for the moderators to do so.

I notice that Bede's signature is "faith and reason," so if he would like to have a byline, I would be glad to suggest one for him.

Secular Jeff · 07-09-2003, 12:13 PM

I am sorry for the confusion and concern that title caused. The title has been changed to what it should have been in the first place.

Jeff Lucas
President, Internet Infidels

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

07-09-2003, 08:07 AM	#61
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Rational BAC, You are a Christian, yes? You recently defended -- or rather, promised and then failed to defend -- your "Cherry Picking" acceptance of the bible; and I haven't seen any evidence of a change of heart since then. So in what sense did you come to the topic convinced that it must be a "slam dunk" that there was no historical Jesus? Perhaps I'm missing something important here, but this has the look of a set-up not especially rare in apologetics: the old, "X was sure that the atheists must be right, but then the evidence changed his mind!" gambit. I don't see much in your posts so far amounting to more than a protracted and disingenuous way of saying, "There was so a Jesus!" If there's a subtlety I'm overlooking, though, I'm happy to be set straight. [edit: cross-posted, but I'll let it stand.]

07-09-2003, 08:18 AM	#62
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	You give me a lot more ability for cleverness than I really have. There was no grand conspiracy to subvert this forum either consciously or unconsciously. Why do you look for more than the obvious-?----------Am no Biblical scholar, saw many posts stating that there was no historical Jesus, and no refutation from either side. Just asked a simple question to find out, expected a slam dunk from my experience on this forum and didn't get one. End of story. I do not seek out conspiracy motives from others. Am surprised that anyone would make any more of this than is there. You are looking for subtleties that do not exist. --------------------------------------------------------------------- PS--------You will notice on the thread with the poll on this same subject that I asked which was correct "a historical Jesus" or "an historical Jesus" I promise you that I had no ulterior motives in asking that question either. I did not know the answer beforehand on that one either. It does seem to be a general concensus that the Brits pronounce it "an historical Jesus" (whether cockney or not) and Americans pronounce it "a historical Jesus".

07-09-2003, 08:47 AM	#64
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Honoured scholar?!? What kind of rubbish is that? If Till has that on his byeline, I want one too. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

07-09-2003, 09:22 AM	#66
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Oh----and by the way Clutch. That Cherry Picking thread, which seems so long ago, in which I came in saying --in essence-- "I knew what was right and was going to kick everybody's buttt-- theist or non-theist" --------was an illusion on my part. And I freely admit it. But, at least cut me some slack on that. Many newbies do that sort of thing. I learned fairly quickly that there are many very intelligent and very knowledgable people on this forum both theist and non-theist. And many times I was outclassed. And that I had a lot more to learn than to "teach". Not that I don't stick in my "2 cents" from time to time.

07-09-2003, 12:13 PM	#70
Secular Jeff Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 609	I am sorry for the confusion and concern that title caused. The title has been changed to what it should have been in the first place. Jeff Lucas President, Internet Infidels

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.