Reflectorites
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:29:34 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
PR>I can't see any point in continuing with this. These arguments are just
>rat holes of errors.
Paul is of course free to bail out at any time, but I will still go through his
remaining arguments to see if there is anything new in them and then answer
them with *evidence*.
My posts are to the List, not to Paul. Others might be interested in seeing
answers to all of Paul's points, particularly Christians who might be encouraged
seeing how critics who rely mostly on bluff can be patiently answered with
the *evidence*.
PR>Arguments are just slung together in a totally ad hoc fashion with no
>degree of consistency. As an example, arguments from silence are
>applied to suit. I hear repeatedly "Why were there no rebuttals", and
>a few lines away is a comment about Christians not copying documents
>that don't agree with them, or missing documents not demonstrating
>something.
I have supplied *evidence* and Paul has just supplied his unsubstantiated
assertions. It is ironic that Paul complains of "arguments from silence" when
almost his whole argument is based on same.
PR>Or my pet favourite, connected with the 70 weeks, where Jones
>apologists disagree and (because he presumably doesn't read it
>but just cuts and pastes it) he didn't notice.
It is called presenting possible alternatives!
PR>Or we get catch all arguments ; Tacitus is like this. Jones claims that
>Tacitus' note about Christians isn't, as one would expect in a Historical
>book, an explanatory note, but is there in case Christianity wasn't
>important at a later date. [despite the lack of any real information]
>Of course, if it wasn't there, he'd say it was because knowledge was
>so common. If there was a complete history of Christ there, it would
>be "proof" of all his claims.
The extra-Biblical evidence supports the Biblical account as well as could
be expected. If there was *no* extra-Biblical evidence Paul would have a
case.
PR>A common one is this kind of false dichotomy. In Jones' mind,
>there is no mid point between "they were frauds" and "Jesus was who
>he said he was" (the assertion in the line before this). This refers
>to the passage at the bottom.
I have said repeatedly that the gospel writers selected and emphasised from
a core body of common sources, according to their personalities,
theological perspectives and the needs of their respective target audience.
PR>This of course also contains the "die for a lie" fantasy, which suggests
>a lack of knowledge of how human beings operate ; and as ever
>assumes the truth of the Gospel.
The fact is that all such "die for a lie" theories have failed. That is why
modern, mutually contradictory "die for a lie" theories keep arising new,
rather than building on a core consensus of radical criticism.
PR>The two main approaches, though are :-
>
>1] Flood posting. Basically, flood with arguments. This is very easy to do
>because there are umpteen apologetics books, and it seems that Jones
>has most of them. This also has the handy side note that anything that
>is found to be well, wrong, can be "not what I said".
I post *evidence* unlike Paul who just relies on unsubstantiated assertions!
PR>2] Debate associative abuse. I called it this because it's used orally mostly.
>It refers to the endless stream of "anti supernatural liberal atheist"
>buzzwords
>that populate his writings. It's function orally is to set the tone for the
>next passage in a debate ; it is an instruction to fundamentalists basically
>saying "... so what they say isn't true".
It is not "abuse". It is what the critics are, and claim that they are!
Thanks to Paul for his stimulating questions, which I have enjoyed
answering *immensely*!
Steve
>
>======================================================
>======================================================
>
> >PR>Or unless the Gospel authors fashioned the story to fit the prophecy.
>
> See previous post on this. It is easy for amateur critics like Paul to
>blithely
> say this, because they never have to work through the details and
> implications of their `the Gospel authors were frauds' theory. My
> understanding is that few (if any) of even the radical critical theologians
> have maintained this. It is just too psychologically absurd that a group of
> Jews would author some of the highest ethical teaching the world has ever
> seen, and then be prepared to die for those teachings, when all along they
> were just frauds who made the whole thing up.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 18:05:15 EST