Re: funny creationsist

jack.mollier@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > OK. You're looking for third-party, independent corroboration of the
>
> > I am going to use Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" as a reference here
> > because it lays out a skeptical analysis of the supposed eyewitness
> > evidence. I summarize:
>
> "The Case For Christ" is not a skeptical analysis, it is pure Christian
> apologetics.

This appears to be an ad hominem, however.

> There are a number of websites with extensive arguments
> against it, made by people with more knowledge of history than I have.

Fair enough, although perhaps you should list them as appropriate?

> > 1) The Intention Test: Was it the intention of the Gospel writers to
> > accurately record history? Yes. Consider the way that the Gospels are
> > written - thorough, sometimes exacting detail, no flourishing or
> > flamboyant language, and no mythologizing.
>
> Virgin birth, son of god, miracles, resurrection . . . what would you
> consider "mythologizing?"

This seems to be the fallacy of a priori argument -- you presuppose
that this could not have happened; because it could not have happened
that means they must be writing fiction; because they are writing
fiction it could not have happened.

> The intention was clearly to proselytize.

This seems to be a nasty word for 'tell others about it.' I am unclear
why they had a moral obligation not to do this, and you don't explain.

> > 2) The Ability Test: Were the authors capable of writing accurate
> > history? Yes. While this culture is heavily dependent on books,
> > computers, and telephones, Israel of the time wasn't. They relied
> > almost exclusively on education, learning, and teaching by word of
> > mouth. They were used to passing along history by word of mouth.
>
> They were also used to adjusting the facts to fit their pre-conceived
> notions. Rigor in history was not part of the culture then.

These vague allegations do not really do your position much honour.
Every one knows that people sometimes don't get things right. To
assert that no-one can ever do so, or some such, is to poison the well.

> > 3) The Character Test: Was it the character of the authors to tell
> > the truth? Yes. They came from a religious culture that looked poorly
> > on proclaiming religious error. Remember that Israel used to stone to
> > death prophets who were found to have lied. Also, these authors would
> > not have risked their lives for anything false.
>
> People have died for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> and thousands of other religions. The behavior of believers has no
> bearing on the truth of the belief.

This is an excuse, not a response to the argument. While true it has
no bearing on the question.

> Speaking of the behavior of believers, your assertion that the authors
> were truthful is without evidence. "Lying for Christ" is a well-known
> phenomena even today.

This seems to be slanderous. Don't do this.

> > 4) The Consistency Test: Are the Gospels hopelessly contradictory to
> > one another? No. There are immediately some "obvious" contradictions
> > which are explained quite readily when culture, language, context, and
> > religious teaching is further examined. If you know of some
> > contradictions that you believe are too strong to be dismissed, then
> > please state them and we'll deal with them as best we can.
>
> There are several sites quickly available via Google that detail
> biblical contradictions. Since three of the four synoptic gospels drew
> material from each other, it isn't surprising to find some level of
> consistency.

This does not deal with the point made.

> > 5) The Bias Test: Were the authors biased in the course of their work
> > which would have skewed the message of the Gospels one way or another?
> > No. It is a legitimate concern, given that the authors loved Jesus.
> > However, love frequently drives a person to perform his or her job even
> > better than normal. Plus, Jesus taught them to always tell the truth.
> > Furthermore, if they were going to skew the message, they would have
> > made the message more palatable and lukewarm so as to minimize
> > criticism and persecution.
>
> Of course the authors were biased, they were proselytizing. This
> argument is completely unconvincing.

You are now presuming your own assertion, tho.

> > 6) The Cover-Up Test: Did the Gospel writers leave out details or
> > modify the message to avoid any negative information? No.
>
> How would you know if they did? Even if they didn't, the church that
> used their books most certainly eliminated "heretical" documents.

This seems to be the fallacy of "I can imagine this therefore it might
have happened, even though I have no evidence, therefore I can ignore
this."

One reason Christianity may well be true is that the arguments used
against it are all of the kind that people produce when they have
already made up their minds but don't have a good reason.

> > 7) The Corroboration Test: Can the Gospels be corroborated by
> > independent sources? Yes.
>
> Please provide these sources. Your quotes from Tacitus merely reflect
> that Christians existed. Again, the ardor, and even existence, of
> believers says nothing about the truth of the belief.

I think you need to read Tacitus. I suggest you look at all the
references to Christ and the Christians in the historical record for
the first two centuries. It is a respectable body for a minor cult
founded at the far end of the empire.

> > 8) The Adverse Witness Test: Were others present who would have
> > disputed and corrected the gospels if they were distorted? Yes. Look
> > at the later Jewish writings. Jesus is called a sorcerer who led
> > Israel astray. That acknowledges that these Jewish skeptics thought
> > that Jesus did supernatural acts. Could Christianity really have taken
> > root in Jerusalem, the heart of the skeptic Jewish culture, if everyone
> > knew of the inaccuracies and distortions in the accounts? We don't see
> > any critiques of the Gospels on the basis of lies and distortions.
>
> The early church did its job well.

With respect, calling people liars because one doesn't agree with them
is one of the reasons people treat atheists as a social nuisance.

> > Does all of this prove that the Gospels are accurate? No. Do they
> > prove that the authors really were disciples? No. But, in my humble
> > opinion, this analysis infers that the Bible is highly accurate and the
> > authors really were men who knew what they were talking about.
>
> Strobel's "evidence" is equally compatible with the idea that
> Christianity was invented in the middle of the first century, based on
> mythic elements (virgin birth, son of god, healing, miracles,
> resurrection, savior of humanity, etc.) taken from a long line of other
> religious traditions. Consider the similarities with Krishna, Osiris,
> Mithra, Adonis, and numerous others.

Unfortunately you have repeated this, uncritically, from some rather
ill-educated person. Since I happen to know something about Mithras
and all the ancient sources for it, I can assure you that the author of
the above was quite wrong.

The idea that Christianity was invented is unevidenced, and improbable.
Does every ideological movement -- political or religious -- tend to
be started by a man with a beard on a soapbox saying "follow me"?

> The creation of new religions has been observed in living memory, just
> ask any Scientologist for a personality test to learn about one such.

Likewise the forgery of dollar bills is a constant presence in our
society. Only a fool would turn down a collection by his workmates on
such a ground.

> Without any objective, corroborating evidence that any individual
> corresponding to the Jesus described in the bible ever existed, Paul as
> an intellectual ancestor of L. Ron Hubbard is a more rational theory
> than that of a god that took human form.

This is a common atheist fallacy -- that if he can find excuses to
ignore all the objective evidence, and of course a fool with
determination can ignore anything -- then it is the job of everyone
else to drill the facts into him. Sadly for such a fool, this is not
so. Don't be like him.

Without any rational arguments to disagree with the statements above,
we may confidently say that there are people on the web in denial of
what they fear may be true. Let them hide in their holes, so long as
they do not bother the rest of us. But when they come out on the web,
orating lies and accusations with the utmost confidence and the utmost
credulity of any passing lie that besmirches the Christians, then the
rest of us -- Christian or not -- will have to consider whether a
civilised society has room for people who have no rationality, only
hate of others and conformity to period values, for a creed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... > "The Case For Christ" is not a skeptical analysis, ... We can find no critiques of the Gospels until a few centuries ... > and thousands of other religions. ... Could Christianity really have taken ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... You're looking for third-party, independent corroboration of the ... Consider the way that the Gospels are ... People have died for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, ... The creation of new religions has been observed in living memory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • WHY BLACKS SHOULD REJECT/REBUKE CHRISTIANITY & THE GOSPELS
    ... Why Black Americans Should Reject & "Rebuke" Christianity of Paul and The ... LET THE GOSPELS INDICT THEMSELVES! ... yellow-colored slaves, the main point here is that the despicable IDEA & ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Re: OT Some Quotes on Religion
    ... Though I am risking my life and well being I can't resist. ... "Jehoshua" sect in Jerusalem, hyper devout Jews, who took their places ... How about the Gospels? ... It is a horrible irony that "Christianity" with its heavily Jewish ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: OT Some Quotes on Religion
    ... Though I am risking my life and well being I can't resist. ... "Jehoshua" sect in Jerusalem, hyper devout Jews, who took their places ... How about the Gospels? ... It is a horrible irony that "Christianity" with its heavily Jewish ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)