Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 12:46 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Re-read what you just said,
OK. It demonstrates an important point - author intent. Sometimes Jesus is compared to IPU, FSM or Harry potter. The IMO most glaring difference is that the authors of the latter three didn't intend for people to believe these were actual beings, while the authors of the NT did.
I love this one. Author Intent. Sure we know that modern day writers would have to put things in the fiction category, I doubt ancient civilizations had such a category. Do you think an ancient writer isn't beyond writing elaborate fiction? Maybe just to write something that makes their side look the stronger, you can't get any stronger than saying that you have God(s) on your side. Besides what you say is also to mean that every religion is valid with their multitude of gods and goddess. What makes yours any different?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
30-12-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 01:18 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  I love this one. Author Intent. Sure we know that modern day writers would have to put things in the fiction category, I doubt ancient civilizations had such a category. Do you think an ancient writer isn't beyond writing elaborate fiction? Maybe just to write something that makes their side look the stronger, you can't get any stronger than saying that you have God(s) on your side. Besides what you say is also to mean that every religion is valid with their multitude of gods and goddess. What makes yours any different?
We have direct statements, such as:

Luke 1
3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

John 20
30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

And accounts of persecutions of the founders. Seems likely they'd recant if it was all intended as fiction anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 02:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(30-12-2013 01:18 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  I love this one. Author Intent. Sure we know that modern day writers would have to put things in the fiction category, I doubt ancient civilizations had such a category. Do you think an ancient writer isn't beyond writing elaborate fiction? Maybe just to write something that makes their side look the stronger, you can't get any stronger than saying that you have God(s) on your side. Besides what you say is also to mean that every religion is valid with their multitude of gods and goddess. What makes yours any different?
We have direct statements, such as:

Luke 1
3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

John 20
30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

And accounts of persecutions of the founders. Seems likely they'd recant if it was all intended as fiction anyway.

These are not first-hand accounts. The authors are not witnesses of the alleged events. It is hearsay.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
30-12-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 08:57 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  When people say WWJD just remember...

Who Wants Jelly Donuts!?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
30-12-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  These are not first-hand accounts. The authors are not witnesses of the alleged events. It is hearsay.
Much of it is, but it's not certain that it all is hearsay as you assert. And so what if it is? Much, possibly most, of what we think we know was learned through hearsay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 03:33 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(30-12-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  These are not first-hand accounts. The authors are not witnesses of the alleged events. It is hearsay.
Much of it is, but it's not certain that it all is hearsay as you assert. And so what if it is? Much, possibly most, of what we think we know was learned through hearsay.

If you're truly interested in reading about the subject.... may I suggest Bart Ehrman and Robert Price?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2013, 03:42 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 03:33 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(30-12-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  These are not first-hand accounts. The authors are not witnesses of the alleged events. It is hearsay.
Much of it is, but it's not certain that it all is hearsay as you assert. And so what if it is? Much, possibly most, of what we think we know was learned through hearsay.

You cited these as 'direct statements'. They carry no weight.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-12-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 03:33 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(30-12-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  These are not first-hand accounts. The authors are not witnesses of the alleged events. It is hearsay.
Much of it is, but it's not certain that it all is hearsay as you assert. And so what if it is? Much, possibly most, of what we think we know was learned through hearsay.

You aren't doing your own claims any favors with your epistemological quibbling.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  You cited these as 'direct statements'.
Yes, direct statements that the authors did not intend it as fiction.
Quote:They carry no weight.
Why not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 03:49 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(30-12-2013 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  You cited these as 'direct statements'.
Yes, direct statements that the authors did not intend it as fiction.
Quote:They carry no weight.
Why not?

They are uncorroborated hearsay.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: