>Misinterpretation does not show either nor have you explained how to
>detect misinterpretation from interpretation.
CW: Via common sense and taking words at face value considering their
grammatical and historical context. However you, not having read them,
are of all people the least qualified to comment on either correct or
incorrect interpretation.
You are incorrect. Whether or not I have read the gospel books is of no
relevance to my question how to detect misinterpretation. Common sense is
not an answer.
>>And why are you limiting yourself to the
>>4 gospels?
>
>CW: Because that's where the direct teaching of Jesus, in His own words,
is
>presented. Deal with that, Pim, and then we can discuss the rest of the
>Bible. My challenge remains -- get a Bible, read the gospels, and form
your
>own conclusion, rather than parroting the standard atheist dogma.
>
>Why are you assuming, incorrectly, that I am an atheist. Perhaps you are
>the one parotting standard dogma ?
CW: I don't what you are; but your arguments are straight out of The
Atheist's
Handbook.
Are they ? Could you perhaps give me a reference to this handbook. I am
curious to read this book.
>CW: BTW, you have just written off all recorded history to which there is
>no living eyewitness. This way of looking at things is really pretty
>cool. I
>To a certain extent history has to deal with such problems.
CW: Now *there's* a cogent argument!
Thank you. I do my best. Perhaps I should have said, common sense ? That
surely appears to be an acceptable response in your worldview ? But indeed
history has to deal with such problems of eye witnesses being dead. What
problem do you have with such an observation I wonder ?
>CW: Hearsay? That statement in not worthy of you, Pim. The existence, the
>life, and the teachings of Jesus is better attested by documentary
evidence
>than of any person of anitquity. Better attested than Plato, better than
>Homer, better than Alexander the Great, better than Budda.
>
>And ? I am not the one claiming that the teachings of Plato should form an
>objective moral basis. The teachings of JC are certainly not objective and
>are heresay. After all we are to interpret the words of the bible in a
>manner we hope is consistent with his interpretation.
CW: My point is that the life and teachings of Jesus are extremely
well-documented. If His words are hearsay, so are Darwin's -- and you have
allowed yourself the luxury of rewriting history to fit your prejudices.
Whether or not Darwin existed is of no relevance for the theory of
evolution but whether or not JC lived and was the son of god is extremely
relevant for the christian religion. All we can deduce possibly from this
'well-documented' event is that such a person lived and had an interesting
life. Anything beyond this relies on faith. We all (re)write history to
fit out 'prejudices'. Is it not the winner of a war who gets to write it ?
Therefor to claim that the teachings are an objective, eternal, universal
standard for morality requires to be shown that indeed it is objective,
eternal and universal. I believe that it cannot be shown to either
objective or eternal or universal
CW: Pim, you affirm the objectivity and clarity of language to argue for
materialism. But thenin the next breath, you claim language is inadequate
to communicate religious truth. It's getting a little difficult to find
much common ground for our discussion, now that language has been
eliminated.
You are incorrect. Clarity of language is important when one claims to
have an objective, eternal and universal standard of morality. For
science clarity is important but science does not fall or stand with a
requirement of total clarity of language. Science relies on observation,
repeatability, falsifiability rather than on acceptance by faith of a
story which is supposed to be the basis of an objective, eternal and
universal morality.