Zzyzx wrote:
.
A Solution
Let's have a sub-forum in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and proof of truth -- and another sub-forum in which the Bible is NOT regarded as authoritative or proof of truth.
People who want to use the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth can debate in the former and avoid the latter. People who do not accept the Bible as authoritative or proof of truth can debate in the latter and avoid the former.
OH, we already have both of those sub-forums. The former is called Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. The latter is called Christianity and Apologetics.
It mystifies me WHY those who want to use the Bible as Authoritative and proof of truth insist on attempting to debate in C&A while complaining that they are not allowed to use the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth.
WHY do they not use TD&D sub-forum where that IS the case?
Is this yet another example of religionists attempting to force their ideas / theology / literature onto others -- and complaining when they are not allowed to do so? That sounds like a microcosm of society in general with a Christian attitude of "persecution" when not allowed to inflict their beliefs and literature onto others.
I'm not too sure that you understand my point since your post talks about "proof", "truth", and "proving Christianity" and not once did I advocate for those things. History is not about truth, proof, nor proving Christianity. In a sense, there are two levels of history. One level is just about acceptable data and the 2nd level is about coming up with hypotheses, explanations, and arguments based on that data. This process involves distinct historical reasoning and criteria, like the criterion of multiple attestation, criterion of embarrassment, argument to the best explanation, etc.
This does not fit in with theology for the following reasons:
- The nature of the claims are historical and does not presuppose theology
- The data is on the level that historians would accept based on historical standards, ie, no interpolations, discrepancies, etc although some of this can be subject to debate.
- There is a distinct historical criteria or methods for argumentation, like those laid out by C. Behan McCullagh.
To dismiss this clear distinction and wave it off as being theology simply because the Bible is used is oversimplifying the matter and ignores the historical process, assuming that you're even interesting in debating on a historical level to begin with.
Also, using the Bible as a primary source ( you call it authoritative) does NOT mean that it is proof of anything, but rather it's part of history via historical standards. The few exceptions are the passages that are disputed.