Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[McBell]

The gist of that argument is that using the accepted methods that historians use to validate the authenticity of ancient documents, the New Testament satisfies those requirements more than just about any document in existence. If you reject the standards by which we can validate the trustworthiness of ancient documents then you have to cast doubt over things like Homer's Illiad, and the biographies of Alexander the Great to just name a couple. The issue then becomes using the "what do we think we know about our world" test to interpret a document's authenticity which is rooted in arrogance and worship of the human brain.

Now you are grasping at straws.
At no point in time has anyone ever claimed that Homer's Illiad is to be used as the end all be all for how to live my life.

Your bold empty claims are just that, bold empty claims.

 

[McBell]

Fine, bad example, but the original point still stands. And no wikipedia doesn't satifying those requirements as we don't have pages of wikipedia that are almost 2000 years old that still exist today

What does the age of the texts have to do with anything?
Sounds like nothing more than an appeal to age fallacy to me.

 

[McBell]

That's why I posted my three page report. It'll take you 5 or 10 minutes to read and it'll explain things as thoughly as I'm able to explain it. I realize on message boards that's a long freakin time to be reading but if we were in the real world, it would be the length of a magazine article. If the story of Jesus is true then we're talking about life and death and it's imperative that the points are fleshed out and clear. I don't think devoting 5-10 minutes of your time is too much to ask. And yes, for historians age of the document is critical in determining authenticity

*climbs up on pontoon boat*

The bull **** is getting really deep really fast.

 

[McBell]

Precisely my point. We trust their judgments after they've listened to the person who actually witnessed the event firsthand

The problem with this is that the judg has lots more than the eyewitness accounts to go by.

This other information appears to be severely lacking in your presentation.

So it is my thought that your analogy is another epic fail.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No, you didn't. Simply saying that they're met isn't explaining how they're met.


But they're in keeping with the standard the Bible gives for itself. If Homer wasn't a real person and someone else wrote the Iliad, who really cares? The beauty of the Iliad is intrinsic in the poem itself; it doesn't depend on who wrote it. We don't care about the Iliad and the Oddyssey because we think Homer wrote it; we care about Homer because we think he wrote the Iliad and the Oddyssey.

In contrast, as Paul points out in the Epistles, if Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, then all of Christianity is in vain.

If we're wrong about Homer, we still have wonderful poems. If we're wrong about Jesus, then Christianity loses its foundation.

I think Homer may have been a real historical figure, but I don't actually care much either way. If that's all you want me to think of Jesus, then fine - we can hold him to the same standard as Homer. But if you want me to think of Jesus as something more, then we need to ask more of the evidence.

I already said Homer was a bad example. I shouldn't even have brought him up because his genre was not non-fiction/biography which how the Gospels are meant to be read. I'm saying compared to other ancient works of non-fiction and biography we aren't holding it to the standard as other types of work simply because we don't like the message or it doesn't fit in with our worldview. I'm saying if the the same body of evidence were found for a message that doesn't blow our mind like the Gospels we would have no problem accepting it and teaching it in public schools

 

[McBell]

I already said Homer was a bad example. I shouldn't even have brought him up because his genre was not non-fiction/biography which how the Gospels are meant to be read. I'm saying compared to other ancient works of non-fiction and biography we aren't holding it to the standard as other types of work simply because we don't like the message or that the message appears to be improbable based on what we think is possible in our world. I'm saying if the the same body of evidence were found for a message that doesn't blow our mind like the Gospels we would have no problem accepting it and teaching it in public schools

and it just keeps getting deeper.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What does the age of the texts have to do with anything?
Sounds like nothing more than an appeal to age fallacy to me.

I gave you the opportunity to learn about how the authenticity of historical documents is determined. If you're going to comment on the subject you might as well be educated on it first. The age is related to the distance between the time the event took place and the time it was recorded. It makes all the difference because it affects the accuracy of what's transmitted. As more time goes by, legend mixes with truth. The less time goes by the more truth is recorded. Relatively speaking, almost no time at all occured between the events of Jesus death and when it was recorded

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already said Homer was a bad example. I shouldn't even have brought him up because his genre was not non-fiction/biography which how the Gospels are meant to be read.

The example doesn't matter.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any historical figure where if we found out he didn't exist, my worldview would come crashing down... yet that's precisely we're talking about with Christianity: if there's no historical Jesus, then Christianity is based on a lie.

The standard we're really talking about is this: would you bet your life on the truth of the Gospels? If no ancient historical source meets this test, then so be it: I won't rely on any of them to that degree.

I'm saying compared to other ancient works of non-fiction and biography we aren't holding it to the standard as other types of work simply because we don't like the message or that the message appears to be improbable based on what we think is possible in our world. I'm saying if the the same body of evidence were found for a message that doesn't blow our mind like the Gospels we would have no problem accepting it and teaching it in public schools

In a sense we already do. There are plenty of ancient chronicles where we pay attention to entries like "in the year ____, Emperor ____ led his armies against the armies of ____ and won a great victory" (though taking it with a grain of salt, remembering that the chronicle was commissioned by the winning king). We dismiss entries like "in the year ____, Emperor ____, the living God, did command many miracles."

Normal historical methods don't get you to factual acceptance of the tale of a literal god-man.

 

[Kathryn]

Baloney.

- Taxpayers receive a credit for donations to religious organizations.

Taxpayers receive a credit for ANY charitable donations - religious or non religious. Why should religious organizations be discriminated against or excluded?

- Religious organizations themselves receive valuable government services at no charge.

What specific government services are you talking about?

- In many cases, religious organizations receive taxpayer grants to provide certain government programs.

To provide GOVERNMENT programs - just as certain nonreligious organizations receive some grants in order to provide GOVERNMENT programs. By the way, which government programs are you talking about specifically?

- In many states, vouchers allow tax dollars to directly pay for religious schools.

The school of the parents' choice - religious or otherwise. Seems markedly ANTI -discriminatory rather than discriminatory.

[QUOTE

You brought up Japan; I responded to your point. It's too late for you to declare it irrelevant.

][/QUOTE]

I didn't say it was irrelevant - what I said was that I am not CONCERNED about religious tolerance or the lack thereof in Japan - because I'm not Japanese and I have no interest in meddling with their affairs. I was using my experiences in Japan to demonstrate that as a religious minority there, it never occurred to me not to respect the culture and the faith of the majority - or to be offended by the open practice of their faith.

Is Japan an officially secular country?

Is the United States?

Neither country has any sort of state sponsored or sanctioned religion, but both countries have a large population which openly practices religion.

Hmm. I'm confused. If you're okay with people expressing offense at religious imposition, then why are you complaining about it so much?

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing - on a debate forum. In real life I quietly put up with all sorts of things which offend me - extremely vulgar T-shirts, pants sagging down around people's rear ends, people dropping the F bomb in the grocery line right behind me or sitting in a booth next to me in a restaurant - I could go on but here's my point. I generally leave them alone and tolerate their vastly different lifestyle, and apparently their vastly different belief system or moral values. I would like the same level of tolerance extended toward me as I openly practice my religious beliefs - whether individually or in a small, or large, group.

You do seem to be dodging that implication quite a bit, but you still didn't actually say what you're arguing for.

I'm not dodging anything - I've said repeatedly that my point is that tolerance and respect go both ways. Just as atheistic beliefs should be respected and tolerated in public, so should various expressions of religious beliefs. In my opinion, people are too easily offended.

I wonder just how many times I have to repeat this in order for it to be clear?

Okay... so then we shouldn't necessarily take your little oasis of tolerance as representative of the state or country as a whole, then, should we?

No, that's not the application of my example. Houston (Katy is a suburb of Houston) is a particularly nasty area of Texas. The United States is huge, with a very wide range of types of communities, often in very close proximity to each other. For instance, you have the heinous crime of the black man pulled behind a pickup truck in Jasper, Texas (close to Houston by the way) and then just an hour or so up the road, you have my nice, tolerant small city. It's like two different worlds.

I've lived and traveled all over the US - it's impossible to say that any region or town is "typical" of the whole.

 

[Katzpur]

A similar argument could be made for spam: we get those spam emails selling Viagra because they work on some people... enough to make it worth the effort of spamming, anyhow. Does this mean that spam is respectful in general?

I don't know that it's either respectful or disrespectful. Mostly, I just ignore anything that appears not to interest me. I don't find it to be a tremendous nuisance. I'm kind of curious, though, since this was directed to me, how many times would you say you've been approached by Mormon missionaries in your life? If you can recall, how did they come across, and what was their response when you told them you weren't interested?

Keep in mind that I was responding to the OP, which implied that all proselytizers are of the sort that tell you you're going to be eternally tormented if you continue on the path you're now on. I have no more use for those types than you or anybody else does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed, you have... I just don't think you are being arrogant merely by believing that another person is wrong.

I think the arrogance comes more from the attitude of "I know better than you do", which I do think is inherent in mainstream Christian belief.

I was saying that there are people/religions who approach religion as you suggest, as a matter of aesthetic appeal.

And others that attempt to assign divine importance to their aesthetic preferences.

I don't have access to transferable factual evidence.

And therefore no way to address my suspicion that you have no factual evidence at all, then.

There is a difference between objective evidence and objective truth. Subjective evidence can support objective truth. Christians, at least all I've personally encountered, accept Christianity because it is the objective truth. Not because it feels right, but because it has been supported during the course of their lives.

Because it "works for them", basically. Again, aesthetics... especially when you consider that other faiths, as well as no faith at all, works just as well for other people.

Do you think there might be a bit of selection bias involved? I mean, the people who start out Christian but don't feel that their faith is supported don't generally stay Christian, do they? I'm sure you've met some converts away from Christianity, right?

That is exactly the reason that most of the Christians I have encountered have their belief.

I don't see how this is a reasonable position. If this were the case, everyone would be Christian; no?

As I said before, I am not the one that demonstrates the truth of my religion.

Convenient.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The example doesn't matter.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any historical figure where if we found out he didn't exist, my worldview would come crashing down... yet that's precisely we're talking about with Christianity: if there's no historical Jesus, then Christianity is based on a lie.

The standard we're really talking about is this: would you bet your life on the truth of the Gospels? If no ancient historical source meets this test, then so be it: I won't rely on any of them to that degree.


In a sense we already do. There are plenty of ancient chronicles where we pay attention to entries like "in the year ____, Emperor ____ led his armies against the armies of ____ and won a great victory" (though taking it with a grain of salt, remembering that the chronicle was commissioned by the winning king). We dismiss entries like "in the year ____, Emperor ____, the living God, did command many miracles."

Normal historical methods don't get you to factual acceptance of the tale of a literal god-man.[/quote]

Fair enough. That's a different matter all together. Be blessed bro

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Taxpayers receive a credit for ANY charitable donations - religious or non religious. Why should religious organizations be discriminated against or excluded?

Moving the goalposts. Your previous claim was that religious groups don't get government support at all. Now you're giving a justification for why religious groups get government support.

What specific government services are you talking about?

The normal things: roads, fire departments, police, flood protection, border patrols, etc., etc.

To provide GOVERNMENT programs - just as certain nonreligious organizations receive some grants in order to provide GOVERNMENT programs. By the way, which government programs are you talking about specifically?

Adoption services are one of the big ones that comes to mind. Certain religiously-affiliated organizations get paid by Child & Family Services to take care of foster care and adoption services for wards of the state.

The school of the parents' choice - religious or otherwise. Seems markedly ANTI -discriminatory rather than discriminatory.

Again, you're moving the goalposts: you're trying to justify what you previously said doesn't happen at all.

I didn't say it was irrelevant - what I said was that I am not CONCERNED about religious tolerance or the lack thereof in Japan - because I'm not Japanese and I have no interest in meddling with their affairs. I was using my experiences in Japan to demonstrate that as a religious minority there, it never occurred to me not to respect the culture and the faith of the majority - or to be offended by the open practice of their faith.

I think it's worth pointing out that I and many other atheists aren't some sort of visitor or interloper here. My family's roots in North America go back to the Mayflower. I'm not a stranger looking in from outside; I'm someone who's been here all along, who's chosen to express myself in one way while you express yourself in another. You have no more claim to the collective culture than I do.

It seems to me that you're interpreting your "culture" to be a Christian one. From my point of view, it's a secular overall culture that incorporates and allows for many views. It goes against my view of my culture to have one belief system overpower the rest.

Neither country has any sort of state sponsored or sanctioned religion, but both countries have a large population which openly practices religion.

That's not entirely true. Japan's official religion was Shinto until the end of World War II. It still has quite a bit of influence on society that derives from this history.

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing - on a debate forum. In real life I quietly put up with all sorts of things which offend me - extremely vulgar T-shirts, pants sagging down around people's rear ends, people dropping the F bomb in the grocery line right behind me or sitting in a booth next to me in a restaurant - I could go on but here's my point. I generally leave them alone and tolerate their vastly different lifestyle, and apparently their vastly different belief system or moral values. I would like the same level of tolerance extended toward me as I openly practice my religious beliefs - whether individually or in a small, or large, group.

Well, so far, all you've had to deal with is exactly what you say is your approach: objections on an internet debate forum, while you get to express your faith in real life however you please unimpeded. Yet you still complain.

I'm not dodging anything - I've said repeatedly that my point is that tolerance and respect go both ways. Just as atheistic beliefs should be respected and tolerated in public, so should various expressions of religious beliefs. In my opinion, people are too easily offended.

The problem here is that slapping Christian symbolism on our public events and culture is not respectful of non-Christians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. That's a different matter all together. Be blessed bro

Is it?

You presented your position as a defense of Christian belief, didn't you?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Is it?

You presented your position as a defense of Christian belief, didn't you?

I think it is. You're saying you need more evidence being left behind than is reasonable to ask from any historical document in existence. You said it yourself, this is about betting our lives on a message. That requires extraordinary methods of validation of ancient documents. Methods that have never been required before by historians simply because the implications are something they've never faced: having to prove a convincing enough argument to bet your life on an ancient document's authenticity.

 

[earlwooters]

After spending thousands of hours reading ancient religious writings of most all religions, from the Yazidi of the Kurds to the Jains of India, and yes hundreds of ancient Christian texts, I now believe they are just words and nothing more. I don't tell other people my beliefs and I don't want other people telling me theirs. If nobody asks, don't tell.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I think the reality is that we can look at the evidence history has left behind to support the NT's veracity. Even if you believe that the evidence points towards the Gospels being true it's probably not going to completely eliminate the element of faith from the equation. If you are waithing for the element of faith to be completely eliminated before you follow Jesus, by having whatever you feel is the 100% conclusive evidence you need, then walking with Jesus probably isn't for you. I really do wish everyone the best in their search for truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the reality is that we can look at the evidence history has left behind to support the NT's veracity. Even if you believe that the evidence points towards the Gospels being true it's probably not going to completely eliminate the element of faith from the equation. If you are waithing for the element of faith to be completely eliminated before you follow Jesus, by having whatever you feel is the 100% conclusive evidence you need, then walking with Jesus probably isn't for you. I really do wish everyone the best in their search for truth.

If you apply a normal historical eye to the Gospel story, then you might get as far as belief in the literal existence of an itinerant preacher who ran afoul of the authorities and whose followers continued their community in his memory after his death. You don't get to Christianity.

And speaking for myself, I'm not waiting for anything. I'm perfectly happy not being a Christian; I just thought it would be illuminating for you to understand why I don't seize on the Gospel story the way you apparently do.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

If you apply a normal historical eye to the Gospel story, then you might get as far as belief in the literal existence of an itinerant preacher who ran afoul of the authorities and whose followers continued their community in his memory after his death. You don't get to Christianity.

And speaking for myself, I'm not waiting for anything. I'm perfectly happy not being a Christian; I just thought it would be illuminating for you to understand why I don't seize on the Gospel story the way you apparently do.

I'll tell you what I would find illuminating. I'd really like to know how you arrived at atheism. I mean this question in the most sincere way to. I promise that I don't want to use it as an opportunity to poke holes in the argument or inject the message of Christ somehow. I ask because I was an agnostic for most of my life. Even when I was agnostic the reason I never went straight atheism was because there were reasons it didn't make sense to me. If you don't mind could you tell me why you are atheist?

 

[earlwooters]

I found it impossible to read Thomas Paine's Age Of Reason and still be a Christian.
I am now a lightseeker.