The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:10 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmWhatever you do or do not reject, Bible apologists reject science, often, when it conflicts with the Bible and you must know it.
Some do reject science, not all, and not the one you are talking to. I could say all kinds of things that atheist apologists make errors on that you, as an atheist apologist, don’t, but that is irrelevant and, therefore, irrational to mention unless it’s actually done in the case one is analyzing.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmDammit the resurrectio - claim itself is of a miracle because it conflicts with science.
How does it conflict with science? Science is the study of what naturally happens. If the claim was that Jesus’ body naturally came back to life, then there would be conflict, but that isn’t the claim, of course. The claim is that Jesus’ body supernaturally came back to life. Science has nothing to say for or against that because that is outside of science’s domain.
I wish you'd keep track of the argument. My point is that bible apologists often do reject science, whether or not you do, and whether or not asserting the resurrection is rejecting science or not (arguably not, because they may accept science other than in God doing a miracle).
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmIt doesn't mater. If Academics, Christian or non Christian, are unaware that the morality argument was done long ago, they have fallen behind and dropped out of the loop. All that is left now is denial of this fact, unwelcome to the Believers, Academically credited or not.
What loop? Not the experts’ loop. Are you advocating that your atheist apologetic loop that says the argument is done is a higher court than the expert, academic opinion of professional philosophers (many of which aren’t Christian)?
Not really, because it is the experts in DNA (philosophy is irrelevant here) and links to instinct, plus handles on sociological evolution and archaeology finding more law codes, that gave atheists the database - science is the database atheism regularly uses. So if the Bible 'Experts' are not equally up with developments, they have fallen out of the loop or would rather stay out and keep trying on the morality argument - which no longer works..
pre p.s Science has shown where morality came from. Philosophy may have a part in trying to sort out wrong or right, but it serves no purpose for validating the morality argument as indicating a god.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmI see no reason to start a thread on a matter now in the realms of science and sociology and irrelevant to the theistic debate, and it is no longer necessary to entertain as an apologetic for religion, especially if you want to sidestep it here and not answer. I'll consider that a flooring of that apologetic pending any valid response from you.
So, in other words, it’s true because you say it’s true and it’s now my burden to prove your wrong even though you don’t give the actual support. That’s sidestepping your burden. If you end up wanting to correct that mistake, I’ll be around.
That would be a fair point if you did not try to make a win out of it. So just to make the bare case, DNA shows how instinct works. Anthropology and sociology shows how family and tribal instincts lead to ethics and morals. Even critters have social dos and don'ts. Increased social complexity led to rules and law codes. Moreover it is basically the same yet different in other cultures, similar to other human inventions like music, art and writing. Morality is no longer an argument for a god, even before we get to which one. Burden of proof (or debunk) back in your court.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmThat's a debatable matter, assuming it is not an attempted evasion. Jesus might have reasoned that he should be the messiah (since John had failed) and he should now work out how to do it. I wouldn't consider that lunacy, or he might have really seen (as Mark claims) the Holy spirit descending on him. Deluded or lunacy I wouldn't like to say and it is an evasive quibble on your part anyway.
No, it’s not evasive. I’m claiming there are four options. You brought delusion up as a fifth one, but it sounds to me like it fits under lunacy. I’m asking for you to support the distinction. Lunacy, in this context, is believing one is God when they are not. That would be a lunatic thought (if it’s not a lie or legend, at least). Reasoning that one is God as well as seeing a hallucination gets you to that same point.
I'm not going to let you pin the winning or losing on that piffling point, in case your were trying it, because I think there is a difference between delusion and lunacy (in one case, one has been fed wrong reasoning and the other is a malfunction of the brain - one reason I don't regard Christianity as insanity, just a mistake) but it is arguable and you don't get to make a big deal out of it.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmIt might be necessary to start another thread or find one to revive. Apart from the contradictions that show that they are making stuff up (Luke inventing the penitent thief that nobody else has heard of) and contradictions like Matthew showing that Joseph lived in Judea at the nativity while Luke says it was Nazareth) I like David and the shewbread which Jesus could never have argued to the Pharisees, nor would they have failed to debunk it if he had, and also the blasphemy charge which only makes sense in Christian terms. Backed up by Herod, hearing 'King of the Jews' not only thinks 'Messiah' but rushes to scripture. This shouts a Christian authorship. As a makeweight I present babes and sucklings mistranslated using a Greek text. Jesus could NOT have said it.
Well, if you do or want to lay it out more clearly here, let me know.
Ok, fair enough. And I'll risk the derail. The penitent thief is clear enough Everyone else thought that stunning event wasn't worth a mention? And one excuse that the others didn't see it won't wash - if Luke heard about it, they all did. Unless he made it up.
In the nativity, Joseph intended to return to Judea from Egypt. That was where he lived. He went to Nazareth for the first time to avoid danger. But Luke says they lived there and just went back there and no flight to Egypt. Separate invented and contradictory stories. I've got a million of 'em.
David and the shewbread (aside from the priests which may be explainable; Abiamelek was the priest in charge and Abiathar - just on memory - was High priest). Apart from the priest checking it was ok for David to have the bread, even if he'd pushed the priest over and just snaffled the bread, David was no angel or saint. If he did a sin it hardly excuses the junking of the sabbath laws. It is a terrible argument, but the Rabbis say nothing. Isn't it clear this is a bad Christian polemic? And yet for 2000 years no Bible expert I have heard of has even mentioned it.
Yes. The blasphemy charge is not one - many claimed to be messiahs but the Romans were the only ones who were miffed by that. The Jews either followed the fellow or ignored him. They did not put him on trial for blasphemy. Christians thought they might, because to them, Messiah is claiming to be divine.
finally Babes and sucklings was lifted by Matthew from the Septuagint (nobody else has that remark) and it differs from the OT quote. Jesus could not have said it - a Greek Christian who did not speak Hebrew nor understand the OT could write it.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:18 pmAs usual, if C.S Lewis was not less smart than he pretended, he was deliberately doing a strawman, as he should have known that there are other options. Mind, Faithbased thinking does overlook obvious options, and he is not the only one to just accept that the gospels are a reliable account. They are demonstrably not, but then, the Experts seem to have missed this, so understandably the believers would. It is wrong, if it is not a knowing strawman, intended to mislead. Lewis was a master of misinformation and propaganda. Bottom line, it is false, whether or not a deliberate fraud or a mistake by someone with a bigger mouth than brain. Mind, I like his stories
Even the smartest among us will miss things at times; no human is omniscient. To fault CS Lewis (or anyone) for not being that is a bit much. So is throwing out the “that’s just faithbased thinking for you” crap or its equivalent "that's just because you don't know God" crap some theists will throw out here. That isn’t rational support, but empty rhetoric. It says more about the one saying it than one's case or one's opponent. If it’s faithbased thinking, let your analysis show that.
C.S Lewis was either dumber than he thought he was, or he knew as well as I and a dozen other apologists that it is a false argument, but he used it anyway. And I can only take a rather jaundiced view of Christian apologists who try to wave it away or excuse it, because I have seen so much of that effort to smokescreen problems with Christian apologetics before.