Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And that is the part you still apparently do not understand: you are presenting a scenario. You are looking at texts that can be interpreted any number of ways, choosing one scenario, and claiming it is the right one. Here is your scenario:

    Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


    This is your chosen scenario (if I got something wrong, please tell me which part), but you can no more show that it is true than I can show that the one I put forward is true. Yet you claim an extremely high level of historical accuracy - with little/no basis for making that claim.
    So if I quote or reference the Gallic Wars I'm presenting a scenario? That makes no sense. And the texts in question are the earliest known texts. Going back to 50AD.



    And THAT is your problem...coupled with a simple reality: there is no way of knowing if these are actually "facts" about the life of Jesus, or simply "facts" about the beliefs of the early church. There are three possibilities with respect to this:
    1. They are accurate facts about both the beliefs of the early church and the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth
    2. They are accurate facts about the beliefs of the early church, but not about the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth
    3. They are not accurate facts about either beliefs of the early church or the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth


    You propose 1 is true without being able to show that 2 or 3 are not equally as likely.
    Again Carp, I'm taking the texts on face value. You are not - BASED on what? The only reasons why you don't take them at face value has to revolve around some kind of bias. What else could it be?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      So if I quote or reference the Gallic Wars I'm presenting a scenario? That makes no sense.
      Sidetrack, so I have no response. Again, which part of this scenario you are outlining do I have wrong?

      Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And the texts in question are the earliest known texts. Going back to 50AD.
      Also irrelevant to the point being made - and the dates you offer are somewhat in dispute. The dating for the NT writings range from 50s for some letters to as late as early second century for some of the Johnine texts.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Again Carp, I'm taking the texts on face value. You are not - BASED on what? The only reasons why you don't take them at face value has to revolve around some kind of bias. What else could it be?
      And that is your problem, Seer - you cannot justify "taking the texts on face value." You cannot justify the scenario you have painted for how history unfolded (above). If you think you can, give it a shot - or if I have misrepresented your beliefs in any way in that scenario, correct the missperceptions.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Sidetrack, so I have no response. Again, which part of this scenario you are outlining do I have wrong?

        Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


        Also irrelevant to the point being made - and the dates you offer are somewhat in dispute. The dating for the NT writings range from 50s for some letters to as late as early second century for some of the Johnine texts.
        Carp your harping on what texts were accepted 300 years later is not relevant since you already agree that what we have in the NT was what they early Christians believed. Stop moving the goal posts.

        And that is your problem, Seer - you cannot justify "taking the texts on face value." You cannot justify the scenario you have painted for how history unfolded (above). If you think you can, give it a shot - or if I have misrepresented your beliefs in any way in that scenario, correct the missperceptions.
        Why can't I take the texts at face value? We both agree that this is what the early Christians believed. On what logical basis should I reject their general reliability?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Carp your harping on what texts were accepted 300 years later is not relevant since you already agree that what we have in the NT was what they early Christians believed. Stop moving the goal posts.
          Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


          I believe this is an accurate statement of your beliefs. If it is not, can you please correct which part of it is wrong?

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Why can't I take the texts at face value?
          You can - but then you are already assuming that the texts are true, so you are arguing in a circle. First you have to establish that the texts can validly be taken at face value, then you can proceed from there. I am suggesting you have no basis for making this assumption because there are other explanations that could account for the texts as they are that you cannot disprove.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          We both agree that this is what the early Christians believed.
          Yes - I believe there is adequate evidence to accept that these texts were not written disengenuous;y and accurately reflect the beliefs of its authors and the communities in which they were written.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          On what logical basis should I reject their general reliability?
          I didn't say you should reject them - or argue that I can prove them wrong, so you are avoiding the argument I am actually making. Why you continue to do this only you know.

          Once again, the point being made is that you do not have any mechanism for showing that the NT books accurately capture the history of the life of Jesus. The best you can do is show that they accurately reflect the beliefs of its authors. You cannot prove it - and I cannot disprove it. The evidence is too weak to come to any conclusion but "something happened." About the only things the historical evidence allows us to conclude with any reasonable certainty are:
          • A man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the every first century
          • He was Jewish, a teacher, and preached a radical philosophy (for that age)
          • He was killed in the early-mid first century, almost certainly by crucifixion
          • In the following years, his followers continued to spread the message and a new Judaic cult arose.
          • Paul of Tarsus had a significant conversion experience and became one of the most significant voices of this new cult.
          • Little by little, this cult separated from Judaism and became its own religion, rooted in but differing from Judaism
          • This new cult believed Jesus was the messiah, was resurrected form the dead, and was divine in nature
          • A wide variety of writings about Jesus occurred within the various sects of the cult, and these were eventually culled to the current canonical canon in the 4th century.


          All of these things are supported by the body of available evidence and can be shown to be true with reasonable certainty based on the available evidence. The claims YOU are trying to make go beyond these claims in a way that the evidence does not adequately support.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Carp your harping on what texts were accepted 300 years later is not relevant since you already agree that what we have in the NT was what they early Christians believed. Stop moving the goal posts.



            Why can't I take the texts at face value? We both agree that this is what the early Christians believed. On what logical basis should I reject their general reliability?
            For the same reason you don't take Homer as literal history. That Troy existed, and that there was a battle there may be history, but it's a history embellished with fictional characters and deities which were believed in at the time. In other words it's a myth woven into the history of the times. Not necessarily false, but also not necessarily literally true.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              For the same reason you don't take Homer as literal history. That Troy existed, and that there was a battle there may be history, but it's a history embellished with fictional characters and deities which were believed in at the time. In other words it's a myth woven into the history of the times. Not necessarily false, but also not necessarily literally true.
              To be balanced - I have to say the same thing to you that I said to Seer - this cannot be established by recourse to the texts themselves. It requires bringing in a body of evidence that surrounds the texts, as well as numerous other disciplines.

              I think Seer's primary problem is that nothing counts in his narrative except the NT texts themselves. He starts from the assumption that they can be "taken at face value." That's not usually how historical analysis works.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                [BOX]
                I didn't say you should reject them - or argue that I can prove them wrong, so you are avoiding the argument I am actually making. Why you continue to do this only you know.

                Once again, the point being made is that you do not have any mechanism for showing that the NT books accurately capture the history of the life of Jesus. The best you can do is show that they accurately reflect the beliefs of its authors. You cannot prove it - and I cannot disprove it. The evidence is too weak to come to any conclusion but "something happened." About the only things the historical evidence allows us to conclude with any reasonable certainty are:
                • A man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the every first century
                • He was Jewish, a teacher, and preached a radical philosophy (for that age)
                • He was killed in the early-mid first century, almost certainly by crucifixion
                • In the following years, his followers continued to spread the message and a new Judaic cult arose.
                • Paul of Tarsus had a significant conversion experience and became one of the most significant voices of this new cult.
                • Little by little, this cult separated from Judaism and became its own religion, rooted in but differing from Judaism
                • This new cult believed Jesus was the messiah, was resurrected form the dead, and was divine in nature
                • A wide variety of writings about Jesus occurred within the various sects of the cult, and these were eventually culled to the current canonical canon in the 4th century.


                All of these things are supported by the body of available evidence and can be shown to be true with reasonable certainty based on the available evidence. The claims YOU are trying to make go beyond these claims in a way that the evidence does not adequately support.
                Why do I need a mechanism? And what mechanism would that be? But you are correct - I don't get your point. I see nothing here to undermine the early beliefs of Christians or to believe that they were generally wrong. In other words, again, I see nothing here to suggest that the texts are anything but generally reliable and accurate.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Wow - you are seriously dodging the question here, Seer. Once again:

                  Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


                  I believe this to be an accurate expression of your beliefs. Is this so? If not, can you tell me which parts are incorrect? Why are you dodging this so forcefully?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Why do I need a mechanism?
                  Are you asking me why you need a methodology for showing your beliefs to be true? Seriously?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And what mechanism would that be?
                  That's what I've been asking you for several posts now, but you keep dodging the question.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But you are correct - I don't get your point. I see nothing here to undermine the early beliefs of Christians or to believe that they were generally wrong. In other words, again, I see nothing here to suggest that the texts are anything but generally reliable and accurate.
                  So, very simply, is the description of your beliefs shown above correct? If not, what did I get wrong?
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yet in all his studies his conclusion was that Christ was resurrected.
                    No. In all “his studies” his conclusion was that the gospels were “written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations”. As a Christian he chose to accept the tradition.

                    And Mark, Matthew, Luke are well within the lifetimes of the actual followers of Christ.
                    But these were not eyewitness accounts. They were dependent on the Jesus tradition that had come down from intervening generations and probably heavily embellished.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      When you say "this event," I assume you're referring to the resurrection? I was referring to circumstantial evidence, such as the textual evidence and the apparent sudden and dramatic effects on the lives of the early members of the community.
                      What we don’t have is external confirmation of the extraordinary events supposedly surrounding the crucifixion such as an eclipse, an earthquake the temple curtain being "rent in twain" and corpses leaving their graves and wandering into Jerusalem etc. – as described in the gospels. Each of which would have been sufficiently significant on their own to receive mention by contemporaries. Especially as there were contemporaries such as Philo of Alexandria who had a specialized interest in Jewish affairs in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century CE.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        But these were not eyewitness accounts. They were dependent on the Jesus tradition that had come down from intervening generations and probably heavily embellished.
                        That is false, these traditions were based directly on the followers of Christ. First Thessalonians was the earliest NT book. Even Bart Ehrman dates that to 49AD. Twenty years after the death of Christ. And Paul knew and traveled with the Apostles and early disciples. And in that book you have the Sonship of Christ, His death and resurrection, and it referenced His return. So Paul had direct access to those who knew Christ.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Wow - you are seriously dodging the question here, Seer. Once again:

                          Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


                          I believe this to be an accurate expression of your beliefs. Is this so? If not, can you tell me which parts are incorrect? Why are you dodging this so forcefully?
                          No, I'm not getting in to the 300 year later thing since you already agreed as to what the early Christians believed. And the earliest book dates to 49AD as Bart Ehrman claimed (20 years later) penned by Paul a fellow traveler of the Apostles and early disciples. BTW - the books that we do have in the NT are the earliest known Christian writings. That is one reason why they were chosen, if you have other writings that date to the first century we can discuss them.


                          Are you asking me why you need a methodology for showing your beliefs to be true? Seriously?

                          That's what I've been asking you for several posts now, but you keep dodging the question.
                          I told you what I do, I take the texts at face value UNTIL I have compelling reasons not to. That would include checking references to persons, places and things. And that is wrong why?

                          So, very simply, is the description of your beliefs shown above correct? If not, what did I get wrong?
                          My point is on what basis do you claim these early beliefs were wrong? And if you are not claiming that they are wrong on what basis shouldn't I take them on face value?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            No, I'm not getting in to the 300 year later thing since you already agreed as to what the early Christians believed. And the earliest book dates to 49AD as Bart Ehrman claimed (20 years later) penned by Paul a fellow traveler of the Apostles and early disciples. BTW - the books that we do have in the NT are the earliest known Christian writings. That is one reason why they were chosen, if you have other writings that date to the first century we can discuss them.
                            Wow - you are really working hard to dodge the question. Again, I believe this is an accurate statement about your beliefs:

                            Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


                            If it is not, can you tell me which parts are incorrect? It's a simple question, Seer. This is either accurate, or it is not. I can understand why you feel a need to dodge it. I think you can see the problem coming for you, and you have no answer for it. If you point to any part of this as wrong, at least part of your belief system is going to collapse. If you admit the entire thing is correct, you are going to need to be ready to defend it, and you cannot. If I were in your position, I'd be dodging the question too.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I told you what I do, I take the texts at face value UNTIL I have compelling reasons not to. That would include checking references to persons, places and things. And that is wrong why?
                            I know you do, Seer. What you cannot do is explain, logically and definitively, why the texts should be taken at face value. Instead, you try to force everyone else to explain why they should not. But I suspect that is not how you operate in any other part of your life. You certainly don't do it for any OTHER religious texts. You don't do it for any of the apocrypha. I'd be surprised if you do it for anything. Without a reason for accepting something at face value, we humans tend not to.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            My point is on what basis do you claim these early beliefs were wrong? And if you are not claiming that they are wrong on what basis shouldn't I take them on face value?
                            Again, you are trying to make my argument into something it is not so you can fight against it. That is the classic strawman approach.

                            My argument: you have no basis for making the historical claims about the life of Jesus that you are making.
                            Your rendition of it: You are wrong.

                            Those are not equivalent statements, so you are changing my argument into what you apparently want it to be.

                            Consider this scenario: I'm talking to a person who is explaining why they believe the earth orbits the sun, and their explanation is riddled with claims of magical forces, invisible chains binding the earth to the sun, or any other number of oddities. I say, "you have no basis for believing the earth is orbiting the sun." I am saying, "the arguments you are making do not support your conclusion." Am I making the claim "the earth does not orbit the sun?" Of course not. I am making the claim that the arguments made do not support the conclusion reached, even if the conclusion is right. You are hyperfocused on the fact that I actually think your conclusion is wrong, but that is NOT what I am arguing. I am arguing that you do not have a basis for claiming your conclusion is right.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-08-2020, 07:32 AM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Wow - you are really working hard to dodge the question. Again, I believe this is an accurate statement about your beliefs:

                              Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


                              If it is not, can you tell me which parts are incorrect? It's a simple question, Seer. This is either accurate, or it is not. I can understand why you feel a need to dodge it. I think you can see the problem coming for you, and you have no answer for it. If you point to any part of this as wrong, at least part of your belief system is going to collapse. If you admit the entire thing is correct, you are going to need to be ready to defend it, and you cannot. If I were in your position, I'd be dodging the question too.
                              I'm not dodging anything Carp, I object to you moving the goal posts with the three hundred years thing since we already agree on what the early Christians believed. And no I don't agree with the 30-70 years later, certain letters of were earlier. And the fact is most of what we have in the NT are now considered first century works. So they actually are contemporary with the lives of the Apostles and early disciples, if you have any other books that that can be shown to first century works please list them - oh wait you know you can't.


                              I know you do, Seer. What you cannot do is explain, logically and definitively, why the texts should be taken at face value. Instead, you try to force everyone else to explain why they should not. But I suspect that is not how you operate in any other part of your life. You certainly don't do it for any OTHER religious texts. You don't do it for any of the apocrypha. I'd be surprised if you do it for anything. Without a reason for accepting something at face value, we humans tend not to.
                              Nonsense, there is not an older text that I don't take at face value. Especially with biographies. When I read contemporary accounts about General Lee or Jackson I certainly take them at face value. Don't you and why not?


                              Again, you are trying to make my argument into something it is not so you can fight against it. That is the classic strawman approach.

                              My argument: you have no basis for making the historical claims about the life of Jesus that you are making.
                              Your rendition of it: You are wrong.
                              Yet you have not offered one good reason to doubt that the NT is generally accurate.


                              Consider this scenario: I'm talking to a person who is explaining why they believe the earth orbits the sun, and their explanation is riddled with claims of magical forces, invisible chains binding the earth to the sun, or any other number of oddities. I say, "you have no basis for believing the earth is orbiting the sun." I am saying, "the arguments you are making do not support your conclusion." Am I making the claim "the earth does not orbit the sun?" Of course not. I am making the claim that the arguments made do not support the conclusion reached, even if the conclusion is right. You are hyperfocused on the fact that I actually think your conclusion is wrong, but that is NOT what I am arguing. I am arguing that you do not have a basis for claiming your conclusion is right.
                              There it is! It is not, nor has it ever been, about the historicity of the NT but what is contained in it. If we had stories of Jesus who just went around teaching people to love each other in the same historical surrounding with out claims of Divinity or miracles you would have no problem accepting that historical content. So it like I said earlier your objections come down to anti-supernatural bias, which one would expect from and atheist. Just admit it.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                I'm not dodging anything Carp, I object to you moving the goal posts with the three hundred years thing since we already agree on what the early Christians believed. And no I don't agree with the 30-70 years later, certain letters of were earlier. And the fact is most of what we have in the NT are now considered first century works. So they actually are contemporary with the lives of the Apostles and early disciples, if you have any other books that that can be shown to first century works please list them - oh wait you know you can't.
                                There is no moving of the goal posts. Many texts were written about the life of Jesus by many Christian communities in that same era. You have claimed "I take them on face value," but you only selectively "take them on face value." Specifically, you only accept the books of the NT on face value, a canon that was never formally established...it evolved over a period of almost 500 years, with different books being added at different times. That makes my question perfectly on target and you are dodging it. So, again, adjusted for a bit of history I just dug out...

                                Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones, and incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.


                                Is this an accurate reflection of your beliefs? If not, which part is inaccurate?

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Nonsense, there is not an older text that I don't take at face value. Especially with biographies. When I read contemporary accounts about General Lee or Jackson I certainly take them at face value. Don't you and why not?
                                Because taking any text I pick up at "face value" exposes me to the possibility (indeed, the probability) that I will accept nonsense as truth. So before I read any text, I check out the author to see what is known about them and what else they have written. If I can find nothing, my confidence in the text I am reading is weakened. If they have a reputation for writing slanted things, my confidence is weakened and I will work harder to verify the various claims made. As I read, I look for alignment with what I already know and understand. If there is misalignment, I look for the reasons why there is misalignment. I would consider that to be pretty basic for anyone reading anything. If this is not done, we get the world we have today, where misinformation can propagate quickly and be adopted as "truth."

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Yet you have not offered one good reason to doubt that the NT is generally accurate.
                                I have not made that argument or claim, so I have no answer for you. If you want to have a discussion about the accuracy of the NT, we can have that separately, but right now I am interested in THIS discussion and claim: "you have not adequately defended the claims you are making about the historical life of Jesus."

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                There it is! It is not, nor has it ever been, about the historicity of the NT but what is contained in it. If we had stories of Jesus who just went around teaching people to love each other in the same historical surrounding with out claims of Divinity or miracles you would have no problem accepting that historical content. So it like I said earlier your objections come down to anti-supernatural bias, which one would expect from and atheist. Just admit it.
                                I have not raised any questions about the accuracy of the NT. You are focusing on my use of "magic" in the scenario to justify you going back to an argument I am NOT making. The purpose of the scenario was to show the difference between "claims not supported" and "you're wrong." So, if it makes you feel better, here's the same example without the magic: Someone claims to know that the earth orbits the sun and proceeds to explain that atomic bonds between dark matter existing between the earth and the sun bond the earth to the sun and keep it in orbit. I tell them, "you have not adequately defended the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun.'" Note that I am not saying "you are wrong about the earth orbiting the sun." I am saying "you have not adequately defended the claim."

                                Again, because you seem to be having difficulty grasping this, my argument is:

                                Seer does not have adequate evidence to support the historical claims he is making about the life of Jesus.


                                It is not...

                                Seer is wrong about the historical claims he is making about the life of Jesus.


                                Changing my argument to what you want it to be so you can have an argument about "supernatural vs. natural" is either a strawman, or it is an intentional attempt to misrepresent my argument. I am not sure which it is, but I will admit to getting tired of having to continually try to bring you back to the argument I am actually putting forward. If you repeat this again, I'll simply assume you are either unable or unwilling to actually address the argument being made, and it is quite likely a combination of both.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-08-2020, 10:35 AM.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                50 responses
                                208 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X