In a message dated 06/12/00 23:06:20 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
PR>I can't see any point in continuing with this. These arguments are just
>rat holes of errors.
Steve:
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*.
PR:
You have very variable standards of evidence.
Steve:
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*.
Paul Robson:
As shown here. Quoting opinions of other apologists ad nauseam is
not "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.
Steve:
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.
Paul Robson:
You see, this is absolutely typical. Steve either doesn't understand,
or doesn't get the point.
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.
Steve:
It is called presenting possible alternatives!
Paul Robson:
No, it's called flooding. ONE of them has to be wrong !
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
This ignores the point as well !
I wonder if you actually read it. I mean, this is such a non-answer to the
above comment I despair.
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
So does this ! And you wonder why I'm bailing out. WHAT does this have
to do with the paragraph above ?
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Well, this is just nonsense (and an assertion !), and doesn't address the
point, as usual.
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".
Steve Jones:
I post *evidence* unlike Paul who just relies on unsubstantiated assertions!
Paul Robson:
No , you post largely unsupported or flat out fantasy from apologists and
claim its evidence.
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".
Steve Jones:
It is not "abuse". It is what the critics are, and claim that they are!
Paul Robson:
You really think that Christians call themselves "anti supernatural" ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 02:19:24 EST