Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Paul wrote in Romans saying all men are liars. The lie that he refers to is not bearing false witness but that man's unrighteousness in general underscores God's glory. The truth of Romans 3 is the gospel. Paul's "lie" was regarding his earning justification by works, not manipulating statements in documents. Do you have another admission of a lie in the Bible for me to review, as opposed to the Donation of Constantine and etc? Christians may lie, do you have a document demonstrating a Bible lie or insertion? Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:02 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 02:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Paul wrote in Romans saying all men are liars. The lie that he refers to is not bearing false witness but that man's unrighteousness in general underscores God's glory. The truth of Romans 3 is the gospel. Paul's "lie" was regarding his earning justification by works, not manipulating statements in documents. Do you have another admission of a lie in the Bible for me to review, as opposed to the Donation of Constantine and etc? Christians may lie, do you have a document demonstrating a Bible lie or insertion? Thanks.
Yes, and Shakespeare wrote that all men are actors. Does that underscore god's glory too?

Who cares what men write? It's just some guy, writing some stuff. Does some guy writing some stuff prove that God exists? That guy wasn't any more certain, or any more guaranteed to be correct, than you or I - while you may be certain for personal reasons such as imagining you have a relationship or believing in miracles, etc., you still have no actual evidence outside your own mind. Neither did Paul. He was just a guy writing stuff.

In fact, the whole bible is just a bunch of guys writing a bunch of stuff.

I could take you to your local library and show you thousands, maybe millions, of books, collectively written by a bunch of guys (and gals) who wrote stuff. The fact that people write stuff doesn't make the stuff true, not the bible, not any of those other millions of books.

So what's the point?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Yes, and Shakespeare wrote that all men are actors. Does that underscore god's glory too?
Yes, since the word "actor" comes from the Greek "hypocrite" meaning, "liar". Smile
Quote:Who cares what men write? It's just some guy, writing some stuff. Does some guy writing some stuff prove that God exists? That guy wasn't any more certain, or any more guaranteed to be correct, than you or I - while you may be certain for personal reasons such as imagining you have a relationship or believing in miracles, etc., you still have no actual evidence outside your own mind. Neither did Paul. He was just a guy writing stuff.

In fact, the whole bible is just a bunch of guys writing a bunch of stuff.

I could take you to your local library and show you thousands, maybe millions, of books, collectively written by a bunch of guys (and gals) who wrote stuff. The fact that people write stuff doesn't make the stuff true, not the bible, not any of those other millions of books.

So what's the point?
The point might be "42" or it might be Christianity or... but my point in my post(s) was freethinkers set up (perhaps unintentionally) a straw man argument by saying, "There are no historians contemporaneous to Jesus" and at the same time, "Those who corroborate the NT writings are not historians because they have to be liars since they speak of God and God's miracles."
There are millions of books. Many are fiction, many are factual. There are about two dozen religious texts for major religions which claim both miracles and inspiration in writing. It's not a "millions of books to be reviewed" but rather a few commonly available texts which may be read, dissected and explored.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 03:09 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, and Shakespeare wrote that all men are actors. Does that underscore god's glory too?
Yes, since the word "actor" comes from the Greek "hypocrite" meaning, "liar". Smile
Quote:Who cares what men write? It's just some guy, writing some stuff. Does some guy writing some stuff prove that God exists? That guy wasn't any more certain, or any more guaranteed to be correct, than you or I - while you may be certain for personal reasons such as imagining you have a relationship or believing in miracles, etc., you still have no actual evidence outside your own mind. Neither did Paul. He was just a guy writing stuff.

In fact, the whole bible is just a bunch of guys writing a bunch of stuff.

I could take you to your local library and show you thousands, maybe millions, of books, collectively written by a bunch of guys (and gals) who wrote stuff. The fact that people write stuff doesn't make the stuff true, not the bible, not any of those other millions of books.

So what's the point?
The point might be "42" or it might be Christianity or... but my point in my post(s) was freethinkers set up (perhaps unintentionally) a straw man argument by saying, "There are no historians contemporaneous to Jesus" and at the same time, "Those who corroborate the NT writings are not historians because they have to be liars since they speak of God and God's miracles."
There are millions of books. Many are fiction, many are factual. There are about two dozen religious texts for major religions which claim both miracles and inspiration in writing. It's not a "millions of books to be reviewed" but rather a few commonly available texts which may be read, dissected and explored.
Not all books are written equal. And not all stories are equally likely to be true.

But, as Hitchens would say, I'll give you all the miracles. And you'll still be left where you are. Standing and holding an empty bucket. What logical connection demonstrates that any given miracle, means that a god exists? And how does one verify any particular connection if one exists if miracles (especially those in the bible) are not repeatable measures?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 03:09 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The point might be "42" or it might be Christianity or... but my point in my post(s) was freethinkers set up (perhaps unintentionally) a straw man argument by saying, "There are no historians contemporaneous to Jesus" and at the same time, "Those who corroborate the NT writings are not historians because they have to be liars since they speak of God and God's miracles."
There are millions of books. Many are fiction, many are factual. There are about two dozen religious texts for major religions which claim both miracles and inspiration in writing. It's not a "millions of books to be reviewed" but rather a few commonly available texts which may be read, dissected and explored.

So we agree that having book written by men doesn't mean the book is true.

So how can we tell if a book that seems to be true is actually true? Maybe we cannot. But we can compare that book to other similar books and other works by similar writers. If the comparison holds up, we can say that there is corroborating evidence from other sources. This doesn't guarantee that the book in question is true, but it does make it seem more likely.

In the case of the bible, we do this by looking around for other credible authors who lived at the time of the events in question. We examine their works (which also might be fiction or might be true) looking for corroborating evidence. If we find some, it lends credence to the biblical account. But, fact is, we don't. Yeah, yeah, some of the places in the bible appear to have been real places, but I think everyone agrees that it's possible to write fiction that occurs in real places and the reality of the places doesn't validate the fiction.

What we need is corroboration of the EVENTS in the bible, not just the geographic locations where those events allegedly occurred.


We don't have that.

Let me draw an analogy. Imagine that you picked up today's newspaper and the front page headline read that there were two moons in the sky today. You look outside but the moon(s) have set so you cannot tell if this really happened or not. So you get several other newspapers. None of them even mention two moons. You turn on your TV and watch several newscasts. None of them mention two moons. What conclusion would you draw from this?

You and I both know that you would conclude that the one newspaper that claimed there were two moons must have been false.

This is much like the story of Jesus. This guy was supposedly the son of the one true god. He worked miracles. He rose from the dead. There were stars foretelling his arrival and earthquakes announcing his departure. Big, amazing events throughout his life and death.

Just about as amazing as finding two moons in the sky. Maybe even more amazing.

But nobody, NOBODY, ever mentioned him during his life, during these amazing events. Nobody.

My conclusion from that is the same one that I would conclude if no second news source could corroborate the two moons news story: The uncorroborated story is probably false.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Not all books are written equal. And not all stories are equally likely to be true.

But, as Hitchens would say, I'll give you all the miracles. And you'll still be left where you are. Standing and holding an empty bucket. What logical connection demonstrates that any given miracle, means that a god exists? And how does one verify any particular connection if one exists if miracles (especially those in the bible) are not repeatable measures?
No logical connection. As was discussed elsewhere, a display of power demonstrates neither godhood nor omnipotence. Jesus spoke of this phenomenon and denounced miracles as confirmatory evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 02:47 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Actually, I think Washington is true. Or more accurately, real. Did you mean that a work of fiction set in Washington does not mean the fiction is true?

Yes, that's what I should have said.

(05-03-2013 02:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Paul wrote in Romans saying all men are liars. The lie that he refers to is not bearing false witness but that man's unrighteousness in general underscores God's glory. The truth of Romans 3 is the gospel. Paul's "lie" was regarding his earning justification by works, not manipulating statements in documents. Do you have another admission of a lie in the Bible for me to review, as opposed to the Donation of Constantine and etc? Christians may lie, do you have a document demonstrating a Bible lie or insertion? Thanks.

No. He was complaining about something else entirely. What YOU say is the "truth" is your belief. Paul actually cooked up an entirely new religion from the gospels, and the gospels had not even been written yet AND he said in one place he got it from the apostles, and another from his "vision". He was obviously confused about whatever it was.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...s+St.+Paul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection
All the gospels were made up. You have proof of nothing. Matthew says there was an earthquake...there was not. That the temple curtain was "rent" Never happened. 500 (!) dead people sarted waking around Jerusalem, yet no one else happpened to notice it. Right. Split rocks ? No one ever found any.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:So we agree that having book written by men doesn't mean the book is true.

So how can we tell if a book that seems to be true is actually true? Maybe we cannot. But we can compare that book to other similar books and other works by similar writers. If the comparison holds up, we can say that there is corroborating evidence from other sources. This doesn't guarantee that the book in question is true, but it does make it seem more likely.

In the case of the bible, we do this by looking around for other credible authors who lived at the time of the events in question. We examine their works (which also might be fiction or might be true) looking for corroborating evidence. If we find some, it lends credence to the biblical account. But, fact is, we don't. Yeah, yeah, some of the places in the bible appear to have been real places, but I think everyone agrees that it's possible to write fiction that occurs in real places and the reality of the places doesn't validate the fiction.

What we need is corroboration of the EVENTS in the bible, not just the geographic locations where those events allegedly occurred.


We don't have that.

Let me draw an analogy. Imagine that you picked up today's newspaper and the front page headline read that there were two moons in the sky today. You look outside but the moon(s) have set so you cannot tell if this really happened or not. So you get several other newspapers. None of them even mention two moons. You turn on your TV and watch several newscasts. None of them mention two moons. What conclusion would you draw from this?

You and I both know that you would conclude that the one newspaper that claimed there were two moons must have been false.

This is much like the story of Jesus. This guy was supposedly the son of the one true god. He worked miracles. He rose from the dead. There were stars foretelling his arrival and earthquakes announcing his departure. Big, amazing events throughout his life and death.

Just about as amazing as finding two moons in the sky. Maybe even more amazing.

But nobody, NOBODY, ever mentioned him during his life, during these amazing events. Nobody.

My conclusion from that is the same one that I would conclude if no second news source could corroborate the two moons news story: The uncorroborated story is probably false.
But we begin in a different place, where we can see the Bible's prophecies confirmed. The 70 years' captivity, the return of Israel to becoming a Jewish nation, etc. We have fulfilled instances....
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/pdf/JeffBIBL...ision2.pdf
And it's not an uncorroborated story--as you've mentioned, it was merely uncorroborated during the events (as far as we know)--in written documents--from people who were fleeing persecution from Jews and Romans alike--and were incredibly busy in ministry work and evangelism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 04:03 PM
Re: Run The Gauntlet
Which makes the bible and any other religious text useless.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 04:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Sooth saying was forbidden.The role of a prophet was not to tell the future. Common fundie mistake.
Prophesy : The fallacy of prophecy as telling of future events.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: