Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Goat]

Zorro1 wrote:

You are actually helping my point. I said that the historians and scholars I cited came from different positions, you have provided great evidence of this fact on this one issue. Consider that there are hundreds of other points that all historians and scholars dealing with this issue disagree about! Given all the diversity between all these scholars, doesn't it seem interesting to you that over 95% of all scholars agree to those 12 facts I cited earlier?

I would like to see your data on this.
Where are these 95% that agree on all 12 facts.
We want to see the numbers and how you arrived at such a statement.
I want to see 95% of them agreeing on all 12 not 50% on 6 and 45% on 8 or even 23% in 1. Let us see the 95% on all 12.
Where is the data? Show you work.
You may use both sides of the paper if you like.

Here is an argument that discusses many of the points we have gone over in this thread:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_ ... 2_2005.htm

Well, I can see the source of your claims at least. It doesn't make those claims any more accurate.

[Zorro1]

Zorro1 wrote:

You are actually helping my point. I said that the historians and scholars I cited came from different positions, you have provided great evidence of this fact on this one issue. Consider that there are hundreds of other points that all historians and scholars dealing with this issue disagree about! Given all the diversity between all these scholars, doesn't it seem interesting to you that over 95% of all scholars agree to those 12 facts I cited earlier?

I would like to see your data on this.
Where are these 95% that agree on all 12 facts.
We want to see the numbers and how you arrived at such a statement.
I want to see 95% of them agreeing on all 12 not 50% on 6 and 45% on 8 or even 23% in 1. Let us see the 95% on all 12.
Where is the data? Show you work.
You may use both sides of the paper if you like.

Here is an argument that discusses many of the points we have gone over in this thread:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_ ... 2_2005.htm

Well, I can see the source of your claims at least. It doesn't make those claims any more accurate.

Well, then you can also see the 96 references Habermas cites. If you don't believe his claims are accurate, why don't you go and check them out. That is the whole idea behind citing references. They say, "if you don't believe me, here is the data, look it up yourself."

Your problem is that your refuse to accept the findings and you refuse to do any of the research yourself. Then you say, there is no evidence, there is just claims. Well, of course, if you refuse to investigate the evidence or except the conclusions of those who have, you have no way of determining anything. This is position is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest shell game.

Z

[Lotan]

Here is an argument that discusses many of the points we have gone over in this thread:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_ ... 2_2005.htm

Thanks for the link. Habermas' article sheds some light on your assertions (repeated ad nauseum) regarding those 12 alleged 'facts'. He says...

"Since 1975, more than 1400 scholarly publications on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus have appeared."

While you said...

Did you know that there are about 2,200 scholars who have written on the resurrection in the past 15 to 16 years, in English, French and German? Did you know that 95% to 99% agree on 10 points that we can know about the time of Jesus death and following, depending on the point? Did you know these range from far liberal atheists to moderates to conservatives? Did you know that only a few of those 10 points is all we need to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?

...and...

Over the last 30 years there have been over 2,200 scholarly publications on the Jesus death, burial and events that followed. These scholars include staunch atheists, skeptics, liberals, moderates and conservatives. These articles and books are written in English, French and German. These scholars virtually all agree on a number of facts about Jesus death and following. Here is a list of these facts. Depending on the specific fact we find agreement from 95% to 99% on each of these:

Meanwhile, in another article Habermas says...

"What began rather modestly evolved into a five year study of well over 2000 sources on this topic (the resurrection of Jesus), published from 1975 to the present in German, French, and English."

Let's put all that in chart form:

Habermas - since 1975 > 1,400
Zorro1 - since 1990 ~ 2,200
Zorro1 - since 1975 > 2,200
Habermas - since 1975 > 2,000

So what gives? Which (if any) of these figures are correct? Could the discrepancies be the result of the selection criteria by which the publications were included? Was that an objective process?

***
As early as Post 277 I stated my opinion that "Your sample must be heavily weighted toward the conservative side." but, with the exception of a partial list of scholars in a reply to Cathar, you made no attempt to answer this objection. At least Habermas' article addresses this question (sort of)...

"For the purposes of this essay, I will define moderate conservative approaches to the resurrection as those holding that Jesus was actually raised from the dead in some manner, either bodily (and thus extended in space and time), or as some sort of spiritual body (though often undefined). In other words, if what occurred can be described as having happened to Jesus rather than only to his followers, this range of views will be juxtaposed with those more skeptical positions that nothing actually happened to Jesus and can only be described as a personal experience of the disciples. Of course, major differences can be noted within and between these views."

"Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included."

"A rough estimate of the publications in my study of Jesus’ resurrection among British, French, and German authors (as well as a number of authors from several other countries[34]), published during the last 25 or so years, indicates that there is approximately a 3:1 ratio of works that fall into the category that we have dubbed the moderate conservative position, as compared to more skeptical treatments."

"By far, the majority of publications on the subject of Jesus’ death and resurrection have been written by North American authors. Interestingly, my study of these works also indicates an approximate ratio of 3:1 of moderate conservative to skeptical publications, as with the European publications."

"[35] These percentages reflect only those publications that answer this specific question, where I have conducted a detailed investigation."

What all that means is that 75% of the publications in question represent a conservative viewpoint, as defined by a belief in some form of resurrection. Habermas doesn't tell us whether this number reflects the actual ratio of conservative/liberal scholars though. We are left to infer that. So, when you claim, as you have so often, that your 12 so-called 'facts' are "the facts that over 95% of all scholars accept" do you actually mean "the facts that over 95% of the publications (that answer this specific question, where Habermas has conducted a detailed investigation) accept"? You can imagine how a confusion of scholars/publications could distort your statistics.

In any case, your confusion of alleged consensus opinion with fact is a glaring flaw in your argument that several posters have already pointed out. Habermas puts it well...

"Of course, this proves nothing concerning whether or not the resurrection actually occurred."

It is in his conclusion, though, that he really takes a hard line...

"...current scholarship generally recognizes that Jesus’ early followers claimed to have had visual experiences that they at least thought were appearances of their risen Master."

So conservative scholars think that probably the apostles might have seen something that they thought could have been an appearance of Jesus, sort of. Wow.

[Confused]

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Goat]

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

I would say that it has been answered quite completely. There are a number that do not. They apply a different logic to their religion/religoius beliefs than they do to other religions/religious beliefs/historicial evidence. Of course, that is not saying that all Christians do that, but some do.

[Confused]

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

I would say that it has been answered quite completely. There are a number that do not. They apply a different logic to their religion/religoius beliefs than they do to other religions/religious beliefs/historicial evidence. Of course, that is not saying that all Christians do that, but some do.

I would agree that there exist a lot who don't. But I have also seen evidence of some of the Christians on this site who do. So perhaps you are correct, this has finally been resolved.
( I was actually referring to the Z challenges everyone saga, but it appears as if it has just disappeared. This is ok as well)

[Goat]

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

I would say that it has been answered quite completely. There are a number that do not. They apply a different logic to their religion/religoius beliefs than they do to other religions/religious beliefs/historicial evidence. Of course, that is not saying that all Christians do that, but some do.

I would agree that there exist a lot who don't. But I have also seen evidence of some of the Christians on this site who do. So perhaps you are correct, this has finally been resolved.
( I was actually referring to the Z challenges everyone saga, but it appears as if it has just disappeared. This is ok as well)

There seems to be a third catagory, Christians that apply logic consistantly, but their logic is consistantly wrong, since they base it on invalid assumptions. I have seen a number of 'Arguments from invalid or unprovable assumption' threads.

[Confused]

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

I would say that it has been answered quite completely. There are a number that do not. They apply a different logic to their religion/religoius beliefs than they do to other religions/religious beliefs/historicial evidence. Of course, that is not saying that all Christians do that, but some do.

I would agree that there exist a lot who don't. But I have also seen evidence of some of the Christians on this site who do. So perhaps you are correct, this has finally been resolved.
( I was actually referring to the Z challenges everyone saga, but it appears as if it has just disappeared. This is ok as well)

There seems to be a third catagory, Christians that apply logic consistantly, but their logic is consistantly wrong, since they base it on invalid assumptions. I have seen a number of 'Arguments from invalid or unprovable assumption' threads.

Bad monkey!!!!LOL You would be correct.

[arayhay]

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

NO !they call Israel palestine long before Rome does. that's not logic, it's self serving.


this thread could asked the question; do christians ill - logic consistently.

[Cmass]

Confused wrote:

Could it be, has this thread finally found resolution? Nope. I still thing we are where we were 20 pages ago. Do Christians apply logic consistently?

I certainly hope this thread continues in "sin-dication" since I'm still getting "token" residuals from it!

Confused: NO, my OP has not been properly answered. Unfortunately, since I have been extremely busy of late I have not properly monitored this thread to keep it from veering all over the freeway.

Do Christians apply logic consistently? I still don't see any evidence they do. But I'm open to being corrected. I would actually be much more relieved if I was wrong.

- Chris