Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #343]

In my last post, I neglected to respond to all that was said. Allow me to correct that here.

Nevertheless, I accept the differences between the Koran and the NT

Of course you do now, because you have no choice. But for some reason a few post ago, you seem to be suggesting they were pretty much the same?

I was already aware of the differences you described but didn't bother taking those differences very seriously at the time because my comment was obviously intended as light-hearted humor rather than as a serious objection or argument. By all means, you are invited to suggest another non-Christian text containing accounts of the paranormal or the supernatural that would be more analogous to the NT letters. If your line of reasoning is consistently applied, shouldn't it provide you with a sufficient justification to accept the paranormal or supernatural claims documented in that analogous text as historical and true?

I'd propose that oral traditions of any other supernatural claims / religions should be considered here as well. I propose such in light of "eyewitness" claims that were passed on orally, as opposed to written down sometime, somewhere, by the original "eyewitness".

Where's the cutoff regarding what supernatural claims should be considered legit? Is there a cutoff?

I'd propose that oral traditions of any other supernatural claims / religions should be considered here as well.

As far as "any other supernatural claims / religions" we have already made such a comparison, and it did not work out so well for you.

I propose such in light of "eyewitness" claims that were passed on orally, as opposed to written down sometime, somewhere, by the original "eyewitness".

First, you would have to demonstrate that the content of the NT would not have been authored by first hand eyewitnesses, and I do not believe this can be done. We have already established that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and mentions meeting with the Apostles who claim to have been first hand eyewitnesses. Moreover, we have pretty strong evidence in support of the author of the letters to Theophilus, as being a traveling companion of Paul, which would mean we have an author of one of what we call the Gospels, who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, knowing the Apostles as well.

So then????? Here is the evidence we have in support two authors, who just so happen to author the majority of the NT, as being alive at the time of Jesus. How much closer would you like to get? Now the question is, what facts, and evidence do we have, which may suggest that the authors contained in the NT, would not have been alive at the time of Jesus?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #356]

What facts lead you to believe folks can rise from the dead?

I have never suggested that I "believe folks can rise from the dead". Rather, I am convinced by the facts, and evidence involved that Jesus did in fact die, and was raised from death.

"I never suggested folks could hop up from the dead, it's just I believe me Jesus did".

This, I contend, is an example of double standards.

As far as the facts, and evidence is concerned, as I have said over, and over, there have been book volumes wrote on the reasons there would be to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead,

"My girllfriend lives out of state."

and for one to ask one to supply such evidence here on this site, would be to demonstrate one who seems to be under the impression that it is all so simple, when it is not that simple in the least.

Where better but within debate, than to challenge claims?

That showing one speaks truth is "not so simple" is a problem solely of the claimant's making, not the one challenging those claims.

In other words, it is not as simple as a lot of Christians make it out to be when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". However, it is also not as simple as, "dead folks stay dead".

I don't doubt many a Christian finds the concept of people staying dead to be excruciatingly difficult to grasp. After all, a big selling point of their myth is that folks don't really die, they go up to Heaven and, I don't know, play harps or something.

Or, "Christians behave badly".

I pointed out Christian bigotry in response to your comments regarding why skeptics'd continue to challenge Christian claims after all this time.

I propose that if Christians'd act more christiany, this wouldn't be an issue.

Or, "science says it, I believe it, and that settles it".

I've never expected a Christian to use science to support their magical beliefs, cept to note how well the scientific method works in so many other areas.

That science doesn't support Christian claims ain't my fault.

All of these responses demonstrate one who is under the impression that it is all so simple, and those who are opposed to what it is I think, must have a thinking problem.

While I contend if folks think dead folks hop up and stoll away, well there we go.

Meanwhile, here in the "real world"...

"I believe Jesus rose from the dead."

...there are those of us who understand it is not that simple at all. Therefore, we are fine sharing with others what we believe, along with why we believe as we do, not insisting that we must, and have to be correct, but are rather willing to listen, and consider the arguments of those opposed, without insisting there would be no reason involved in the conclusions they may have come to.

By challenging and commenting, I am considering. It's just I'm also considering how goofy it is to think dead folks hop up and walk away.

I don't care a plug nickel how difficult it is for a claimant to show their claims are truth. I don't care how upsetting it is to point out errant thinking. Especially in debate, and even moreso in a thread about double standards.

Moreover, in this thread, I have supplied you with at least some of the reasons I believe as I do, and you have failed to address any one of these points, but have rather appealed to science, along with the behavior of Christians, neither of which has anything to do with the facts, and evidence I have supplied.

Sometimes I confuse my rejecting one's evidence as lacking, with no evidence at all? So I'll retract up to there.

I referred to Christians using laws to inflict their beliefs on others in specific response to your comments regarding why would skeptics continue to challenge Christian claims.

I'm pretty sure I've commented on how your sources are not around for us to cross examine, and how when we see tales that go against all we know about the world, we should consider such to be a product of make believe.

What facts can you present to support the belief / contention that folks can walk on water?

Again, there have been book volumes authored on the reasons there would be to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

None of which reasons are sound and logical, cept through the distorting prism of supernatural belief.

Therefore, I could not possibly supply you with all the reasons I am convinced this to be true. However, I have in fact supplied you with some of these reasons, and you have failed to address these reasons, and have rather appealed to science,

Why does the Christian find science so problematic when it doesn't support - nor refute - their claims? I propose it's part of the protective mechanism of the god belief.

and the behavior of Christians.

You keep saying that, and I'll keep atelling it...

That was specifically in response to your comments regarding why skeptics continue to challenge religious claims / beliefs.

this would be like me giving you facts, and evidence in support of man walking on the moon, and you going on to insist that I give you facts, and evidence in support of how we actually made such a travel.

I find it far more rational to believe a man walked on a solid surface, than to have walked on water, yes. Regardless, that's not a claim I've presented.

My point is, the reports we have, are simply the events which lead up to the crucifixion, and death of Jesus, along with the resurrection. I am giving you at least some of these facts, and evidence, which you ignore, and now you want me to give you facts, and evidence to support the walking on water, which would really be beside the point, if there were facts, and evidence to support the resurrection. Again, if Jesus was resurrected, walking on water would be a minor detail, don't you think?

I've not ignored anything, and have pointed out that you present writings and such from folks we can't possibly cross examine here today, in light of all the discoveries since those ancient times.

Again, you continue to act as if all one has to do is to dismiss the claims based on the claims being astounding, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm sorry to have gotten you so hung up on that whole "astounding" word, and would like to replace it with "goes against all we know about the world".

The thing is, there would have to be a whole lot involved in order for these claims to be false, and thus far I have failed to see where you have offered any sort of scenario which may explain the facts, and evidence we have.

A simple lie would be all it takes. A simple misunderstanding between what one heard, and what one wrote.

I can't address facts that you've yet to put in evidence regarding the resurrecting, and the water walking. Remember, the bible is not authoritative in this regard, within this section of the site.

I have given you the fact that we know Paul would have existed,...

We have no way of cross examining Paul, that we might consider what he's found out in the ensuing two thousand years.

...and he would have been alive at the time of Jesus,

I was alive in the time of Martin Luther King Junior. Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

...and would have meet with those who would have been eyewitnesses to what they were proclaiming, and all you did there was to suggest that maybe Paul may not have existed, which would cause the whole thing to become even more astounding. But, I am certainly use to you simply rejecting the astounding, by excepting anything else at all, no matter how astounding it may be, as long as it does not involve what you would rather not believe.

Again, none of these alleged eyewitnesses are available for questioning in the here and now.

As I said before, regarding your kinda wondering why skeptics are to this day challenging these Christian claims, I do so in order for the reader to see how scant, to non-existent such evidence is about em.

Well, you are not doing a very good job. In fact, the more I converse with folks such as yourself, the more confident I am in the position I hold.

I've given up trying to convince Christians how goofy are their beliefs, now I post to ensure the ibserver has a fuller understanding of just how goofy they are.

And how based on magical belief so Many Christians seek to impose their beliefs on others through force of law. Up to and including laws designed to restrict the rights of homosexuals, and the rights of women to decide what happens with their own bodies.

You need to save these comments for the Christians who behave in such a way.

You brought up the subject of why would skeptics continue to challenge Christian claims, and now you wanna push this aside.

Yep, the god concept works to kinda conceal itself from the difficult realities.

I have already demonstrated I agree with you on this, and for you to continue to bring it up, is not in any way helping your argument.

Those comments are presented specifically in response to your comments regarding why would skeptics continue to challeng Christian claims.

I do address these claims, when I challenge their veracity, and notice how weak arguments are in support of em.

You need to do more than "notice". You actually need to demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far you are failing miserably.

Site rules do not require I refute claims, but that when challenged, we'd be awful proud if the claimant'd set to showing they speak truth.

As well, as these are claims of the Christian, I'm not bound to refute em, but am allowed to challenge em, per site rules.

I can tell you this, it is not in any way a challenge for you to appeal to science, or the behavior of Christians, neither of which challenge the Christian claims.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I said science was the only valid proof for your claims.

And again, my comments regarding Christians using the courts to enforce their beliefs were a direct response to your comments regarding why would skeptics continue to challenge Christian claims.

I consider such pertinent to the OP, where we're fussing over double standards. So many Christians want the right to believe as they wish, but then seek to deny others their rights to believe as they wish (homosexuals, women).

There's the double standard regarding that bit.

Again, save it for the Christians this may apply to, because I have demonstrated it does not apply here.

Those comments are in direct response to your comments regarding why would skeptics continue to challenge Christian claims.


Oh yeah, let's now consider the last question I proposed in my prior referenced comments, and note it wasn't -ahem- considered...


Do you believe poking sticks in the ground will change the color of animals?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #359]

The intention was not to compare two different claims against each other but to compare the methodology you use when investigating the claims from the Koran to the methodology you applied in the investigation of the claims from the NT letters.

No matter what the intention, I think we have clearly demonstrated that bringing up such comparisons demonstrates nothing either way. Moreover, I believe we also have discovered, it may be best for at least some, not to attempt to bring up the comparison at all, because when we actually make such comparisons, we quickly find out it may not go well for the one who would like to make the comparison.

As far as the "methodology I use when investigating the claims from the Koran", I have not investigated the Koran, and know very little about what it may have to say, or if there would be any facts, and evidence in support of what it might claim. Therefore, I could not possibly reject the Koran as being false, because I would have no idea. However, I do not have to know a thing at all about the Koran, nor any other religion in the world, in order to determine if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims.

I have not been able to establish that you are applying your methodology consistently because you seem to have difficulty describing it such that it can be replicated for use in the analysis of claims other than those from the NT letters.

That is exactly because I have only studied the NT, and have not studied any other religion. Therefore, I could not possibly reject another religion as being false, if I have not studied that particular religion.

In order for me to know if your methodology is reliable or not, I will need to apply it consistently in the evaluation of other claims and observe if it produces competing or contradictory outcomes. If your methodology were to be consistently applied in the evaluation of claims from other competing or contradictory sources such as the Koran to produce results that would justify acceptance of those claims in addition to those of the NT letters, then such an outcome would demonstrate your methodology is unreliable since Christianity and Islam cannot both be true simultaneously unless you are willing to defend a new polytheist hybrid version of those two monotheistic traditions. For the time being, if your methodology is only being applied in the evaluation of the claims from the NT letters and no methodology is being applied in the evaluation of competing or contradictory claims from other sources because you aren't interested in investigating those claims, then I have little choice but to perceive such an inconsistent approach as constituting a type of double-standard in the sense that you are willing to apply your standard to the NT letters but not to those other sources of information. While you routinely declare that you do not have to know anything at all about non-Christian claims from other sources in order to determine if there would be "good" reasons to believe the Christian claims, you also cannot demonstrate the methodology you are using to justify your acceptance of those Christian claims is sufficiently reliable without having applied it consistently to competing and contradictory claims. Therefore, I cannot responsibly infer your methodology is sufficiently reliable for me to accept the conclusion it offers subsequent its single application in your investigation of the available facts and evidence regarding the claims from the NT letters.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'd propose that oral traditions of any other supernatural claims / religions should be considered here as well.

As far as "any other supernatural claims / religions" we have already made such a comparison, and it did not work out so well for you.

Huh?

There's like a brazillion different religions with another brazillion different supernatural claims.

And we went us through all of em?

I propose such in light of "eyewitness" claims that were passed on orally, as opposed to written down sometime, somewhere, by the original "eyewitness".

First, you would have to demonstrate that the content of the NT would not have been authored by first hand eyewitnesses, and I do not believe this can be done.

Paul is a good example here, relating information provided by others.

We have already established that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus,...

It can't even be established that Jesus ever existed, don't try to play the "established" game with me.

...and mentions meeting with the Apostles who claim to have been first hand eyewitnesses.

You've just "proven" what you asked me to do.

Moreover, we have pretty strong evidence in support of the author of the letters to Theophilus, as being a traveling companion of Paul, which would mean we have an author of one of what we call the Gospels, who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, knowing the Apostles as well.

We have folks making claims we have no means of confirming.

So then????? Here is the evidence we have in support two authors, who just so happen to author the majority of the NT, as being alive at the time of Jesus.

I was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.

Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

How much closer would you like to get? Now the question is, what facts, and evidence do we have, which may suggest that the authors contained in the NT, would not have been alive at the time of Jesus?

Truth close.

Do let us know when ya get there.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #0]

"I never suggested folks could hop up from the dead, it's just I believe me Jesus did".

This, I contend, is an example of double standards.

Well you are going to have to demonstrate where this would classify as a double standard? In other words, the Apostles were not walking around as if they believed dead folks could come back to life. Rather, they seem to be proclaiming, the impossible has happened. Now, you, and I both know that if one were to make such a claim, most folks would think such a one has lost the mind. However, the Apostles were making such a claim, in the face of those who would have had every opportunity to demonstrate just how false this astounding (goes against all we know about the world) would be, and yet these ordinary men were somehow able to convince thousands of folks at the time, that this astounding event (goes against all we know about the world) did in fact take place. Moreover, there have been millions, upon millions, of folks who have believed the claims down through thousands of years, but I guess it is you, and others who agree with you, who are the ones intelligent enough to understand the real story, even though you have no real answers.

Where better but within debate, than to challenge claims?

Well, you are not challenging any of the claims I am making, because I have not made a claim which I cannot demonstrate to be a fact.

That showing one speaks truth is "not so simple" is a problem solely of the claimant's making, not the one challenging those claims.

Again, I am not making claims which I cannot demonstrate to be facts. You are not in any way challenging the claims made in the NT simply by appealing to science, and referring to the behavior of Christians. It is also not a challenge to the claims in the NT to make statements such as, "dead folks stay dead".

I don't doubt many a Christian finds the concept of people staying dead to be excruciatingly difficult to grasp. After all, a big selling point of their myth is that folks don't really die, they go up to Heaven and, I don't know, play harps or something.

Continuing to make comments such as the above, certainly seems to be an attempt to keep from having to actually deal with the facts we have. However, I can certainly understand this, since you seem to be have trouble dealing with facts.

I pointed out Christian bigotry in response to your comments regarding why skeptics'd continue to challenge Christian claims after all this time.

I propose that if Christians'd act more christiany, this wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly right! And this demonstrates those who are not really concerned as to whether Christianity would be true, or not, since the only reason they challenge, (if you can really call it challenge) is based upon the behavior of Christians, as opposed to whether Christianity would be true, or not. In other words, such a one demonstrates they are not really concerned with truth, but are rather concerned with behavior they do not prefer.

I've never expected a Christian to use science to support their magical beliefs, cept to note how well the scientific method works in so many other areas.

Or, it could be there are those who understand what the realm of science would be, while there seem to be others who are under the impression that science has all the answers?

While I contend if folks think dead folks hop up and stoll away, well there we go.

Yep! "There you go"! Demonstrating one who is not putting a whole lot of thinking into the conclusions they have. This sort of demonstrates one who would be under the impression that another should be able to type out all the reasons for the position they hold in one post. In other words, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to come to the conclusions they have, therefore, others should have no problem coming to conclusions with very little thinking.

"I believe Jesus rose from the dead."

That I do! And in the "real world"!

It's just I'm also considering how goofy it is to think dead folks hop up and walk away.

Right! And I completely understand this. In other words, I understand very well, that this is the extent of your thinking process. If this is as far as you are willing to think, I have no problem with this in the least. The problem is, this sort of thinking in no way demonstrates the Christian claims to be false. Moreover, you are still left with the possibility of the NT letters being reliable. And I am suppose to doubt the letters based upon, what? Allow me to guess? Based upon, "what goes against all we know about the world"?

I don't care a plug nickel how difficult it is for a claimant to show their claims are truth.

Right? Because, you are not making any claims at all, are you? Rather, you simply hide behind, "I am not claiming the claims to be true, or false". Which goes on to demonstrate you would have to go on to admit, the NT documents could in fact be reliable. Now, do you really want to talk about one who would "like to have their cake, and eat it too"? In other words, you are not making any claims, accept you do seem to want to insist upon how "goofy" it is to believe the claims.

I'm pretty sure I've commented on how your sources are not around for us to cross examine,

Right! However, we have 2 long and detailed letters addressed to one individual, and we have strong evidence to suggest this author would have been alive at the time, and he goes on to tell his audience at the time, he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning". And I am simply to suppose this author wrote out false information, simply because the content "goes against all we know about the world"? Sort of seems like simplistic thinking to me?

and how when we see tales that go against all we know about the world, we should consider such to be a product of make believe.

Or, one could go on to actually consider what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. Some do this and are convinced the claims would be true, while others do this and come to the conclusion the claims would be false, while there are those who may do this, and come to the conclusion they do not have enough information to arrive to a conclusion. However, none of these folks can demonstrate the position they hold would be the best position to hold. Then of course, we have those who are under the impression that it is as easy as stopping once they reach the "astounding". You know, those not really wanting to think, but are rather looking for easy answers?

None of which reasons are sound and logical, cept through the distorting prism of supernatural belief.

You have every opportunity to demonstrate this to be the case, but I am afraid simply referring to the claims as being "astounding, is not demonstrating very much at all.

Why does the Christian find science so problematic when it doesn't support - nor refute - their claims? I propose it's part of the protective mechanism of the god belief.

I have no problem with science. I simply pointed out the fact that you had appealed to science concerning something which would be outside the realm of science, and the funny thing now is, you can do nothing but agree.

I've not ignored anything, and have pointed out that you present writings and such from folks we can't possibly cross examine here today, in light of all the discoveries since those ancient times.

None of the discoveries you are referring to, have demonstrated in any way whatsoever that the claims in the NT would be false.

I'm sorry to have gotten you so hung up on that whole "astounding" word, and would like to replace it with "goes against all we know about the world".

You can change the wording, but it all comes out the same.

A simple lie would be all it takes. A simple misunderstanding between what one heard, and what one wrote.

For the simple mind, I guess this would be all it would take. However, we are to suppose that all of what we have today, could have possibly be based upon multiple folks holding together what they knew to be a lie? Better yet, it is all based upon a simple misunderstanding all these folks had? Even the critical scholars do not hold such a position, because they understand there would have to be far more involved than these things. Why? Because of the facts, and evidence.

We have no way of cross examining Paul, that we might consider what he's found out in the ensuing two thousand years.

Here's what we know about Paul. Paul was violently opposed to Christianity. Paul converted. Paul, is responsible for the spreading of Christianity all over the known world at the time. Paul, went to prison on more than one occasion for proclaiming these things. However, Paul continued to preach these very same things, well into old age. So, are we to suppose he did all of this based upon what he knew to be false? Or, was he simply, mistaken?

I was alive in the time of Martin Luther King Junior. Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

My point was to simply refute those who would like us to believe that the content of the NT, COULD HAVE been authored by those decades later who would not have been alive at the time of the events, and want us to accept this possibility without a shred of evidence, while we do have evidence that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been alive, as would Paul.

Again, none of these alleged eyewitnesses are available for questioning in the here and now.

If this is as far as you are willing to think, then I have no problem with it. However, this does nothing to demonstrate that I should doubt the claims.

I've given up trying to convince Christians how goofy are their beliefs, now I post to ensure the ibserver has a fuller understanding of just how goofy they are.

As we continue to see, you are not doing a very good job!

Site rules do not require I refute claims, but that when challenged, we'd be awful proud if the claimant'd set to showing they speak truth.

First, you need to demonstrate where I have made a claim which would not be fact.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I said science was the only valid proof for your claims.

I never made such a claim. You appealed to science. Yes?

Do you believe poking sticks in the ground will change the color of animals?

The reason I avoided the question is because it is just plain silly. First, what is contained in the NT, is not in any way tied to what is reported in Genesis. Next, as I read the story of Jacob you are referring to, I am not even sure was is being communicated? However, I am sure you understand it perfectly? But the thing is, as you read the story, it simply tells us what Jacob was doing, and the result of the offspring. In other words, the passage is not claiming that the efforts of Jacob had a thing to do with the outcome. Rather, it could be, God had made a promise to Jacob. Jacob then went on to add his futile efforts in order to help God out, and the result was in spite of the efforts of Jacob, and not because of them.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #364]

In order for me to know if your methodology is reliable or not, I will need to apply it consistently in the evaluation of other claims and observe if it produces competing or contradictory outcomes.

I do not believe this to be necessary. Rather, all you need to do is to demonstrate there would be no valid reasons to believe the claims in the NT. Thus far, you have failed to do this. Rather, your conclusion seems to be, the documents in the NT could in fact be reliable. Yes?

If we were to go on to use my methodology, on competing claims, and it produced the same results, then we are simply left with there being valid reasons to believe both claims, with neither being demonstrated to be either true, or false.

If your methodology were to be consistently applied in the evaluation of claims from other competing or contradictory sources such as the Koran to produce results that would justify acceptance of those claims in addition to those of the NT letters, then such an outcome would demonstrate your methodology is unreliable since Christianity and Islam cannot both be true simultaneously unless you are willing to defend a new polytheist hybrid version of those two monotheistic traditions.

I don't think so. Again, all this would do is to demonstrate there may be valid reasons to believe both, while going on to acknowledge both cannot be correct. It would in no way demonstrate the methodology to be unreliable.

For the time being, if your methodology is only being applied in the evaluation of the claims from the NT letters and no methodology is being applied in the evaluation of competing or contradictory claims from other sources because you aren't interested in investigating those claims, then I have little choice but to perceive such an inconsistent approach as constituting a type of double-standard in the sense that you are willing to apply your standard to the NT letters but not to those other sources of information.

How is it a double standard to come to the conclusion that there are valid reasons to believe the Christian claims, while going on to acknowledge there very well may be valid reasons to believe other competing claims? It would be a double standard for me to insist, there would be no reasons to believe the competing claims, simply because there would be valid reasons to believe the Christian claims.

While you routinely declare that you do not have to know anything at all about non-Christian claims from other sources in order to determine if there would be "good" reasons to believe the Christian claims, you also cannot demonstrate the methodology you are using to justify your acceptance of those Christian claims is sufficiently reliable without having applied it consistently to competing and contradictory claims.

Again, if I were to go on to use this methodology on other competing claims, and come to the conclusion there would be valid reasons to believe those claims, this would not demonstrate the methodology to be unreliable. Rather, it would simply demonstrate there would be valid reasons to believe both claims, going on to acknowledge they both cannot be correct.

Therefore, I cannot responsibly infer your methodology is sufficiently reliable for me to accept the conclusion it offers subsequent its single application in your investigation of the available facts and evidence regarding the claims from the NT letters.

Your methodology seems to have brought you to the conclusion, that the NT documents could in fact be reliable. So then, if we move your methodology over to the Koran, would it produce the same exact conclusion?

[JoeyKnothead]

Snipping out the poor ol dead horse...

I was alive in the time of Martin Luther King Junior. Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

My point was to simply refute those who would like us to believe that the content of the NT, COULD HAVE been authored by those decades later who would not have been alive at the time of the events, and want us to accept this possibility without a shred of evidence, while we do have evidence that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been alive, as would Paul.

Sure, but...

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior. Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

...poor dead horse...

Do you believe poking sticks in the ground will change the color of animals?

The reason I avoided the question is because it is just plain silly.

So Christian claims are silly, or just asking about em?

First, what is contained in the NT, is not in any way tied to what is reported in Genesis.

So we can disregard Genesis?

Next, as I read the story of Jacob you are referring to, I am not even sure was is being communicated?

Yet you consider Christian belief to be reasoned / reasonable.

However, I am sure you understand it perfectly?

I don't claim to know me a bunch about it, no. Then again, I'm not trying to contend religious belief is based on reason.

But the thing is, as you read the story, it simply tells us what Jacob was doing, and the result of the offspring. In other words, the passage is not claiming that the efforts of Jacob had a thing to do with the outcome. Rather, it could be, God had made a promise to Jacob. Jacob then went on to add his futile efforts in order to help God out, and the result was in spite of the efforts of Jacob, and not because of them.

"It could be" is indicative of errant translation / story telling.

I've heard / read the passage as poking sticks in the ground, but here it's putting em in troughs. Not sure if it really matters, but there we go.

From bible hub:

37Jacob, however, took fresh branches of poplar, almond, and plane trees, and peeled the bark, exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38Then he set the peeled branches in the watering troughs in front of the flocks coming in to drink. So when the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40Jacob set apart the young, but made the rest face the streaked dark-colored sheep in Laban’s flocks. Then he set his own stock apart and did not put them with Laban’s animals.

41Whenever the stronger females of the flock were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs, in full view of the animals, so that they would breed in front of the branches. 42But if the animals were weak, he did not set out the branches. So the weaker animals went to Laban and the stronger ones to Jacob.

It says nothing about God's involvement.

I reckon we'll have to leave it to the observer to consider if your unsuportable, speculative interpretaion of what was written is a -ahem- reasoned take.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #365]

Huh?

There's like a brazillion different religions with another brazillion different supernatural claims.

And we went us through all of em?

No! I am simply pointing out we have done this with one religion and it did not work out so well for you. So by all means, if you would like to move to another, I am more than happy to oblige.

Paul is a good example here, relating information provided by others.

That is not exactly accurate, but if I give you that one, you still cannot demonstrate the rest would not have been eyewitnesses.

It can't even be established that Jesus ever existed, don't try to play the "established" game with me.

It is sure sign of desperation for one to attempt to suggest Jesus may have never existed. In other words, they realize the arguments they are attempting to make are not demonstrating very much at all, and so the only thing they have left, is to "jump off the bridge". Moreover, this makes the tale become even more astounding. In other words, these men were able to convince millions, upon millions of folks, that some guy who never existed, rose from the dead, and this guy who never existed becomes one of the most, if not the most, significant figures in the history of the world. When one does such a thing, they eliminate themselves from the conversation. Because if we cannot even agree upon the most basic of facts, then we really have nothing left to discuss, unless of course you would like to debate, the facts, and evidence in support of the existence of Jesus?

We have folks making claims we have no means of confirming.

We are not talking about "confirming". However, when the facts, and evidence gets to a certain point, there is a such thing as, "valid reasons to believe".

I was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.

Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

Another sign of desperation. Because, I am certain you would not really want to compare Jesus, to "Bugs".

Truth close.

Do let us know when ya get there.

I am not the one who seems to be insisting I have arrived a truth. Rather, it seems to be you who holds such confidence, and the truth you seem to have arrived to leaves you with having to acknowledge the content of the NT, may well in fact be reliable. Unless of course, you can demonstrate how it is not.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #368]

Sure, but...

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior. Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

Did You know MLK personally? Did you spend any time with him? Would there be any other facts, and evidence other than what you had to say? Are you making such a claim? What's the point?

So Christian claims are silly, or just asking about em?

It is not a "Christian claim" that "poles stuck in the ground change the colors of animals". Christianity came many, many years later.

So we can disregard Genesis?

If you do, it is of no concern to me, and it would have nothing to do with the claims made in the NT.

Yet you consider Christian belief to be reasoned / reasonable.

It is not a requirement to be a Christian to believe that poles stuck in the ground change the colors of animals.

I don't claim to know me a bunch about it, no.

And yet, somehow you know that it has something to do with Christianity not being based upon reason? GOOD GRIEF!

"It could be" is indicative of errant translation / story telling.

This is exactly why I said, "I really do not know what is being communicated". However, whatever it was that was being communicated, has no bearing upon the claims made by the authors in the NT. That is why it is, silly.

It says nothing about God's involvement.

Oh really? Well, when we get to the very nest chapter we read,

Genesis 31:6-9
You know that I have served your father with all my strength. Yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times; however, God did not allow him to do me harm. If he said this: ‘The speckled shall be your wages,’ then all the flock delivered speckled; and if he said this: ‘The striped shall be your wages,’ then all the flock delivered striped. So God has taken away your father’s livestock and given them to me.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #364]

In order for me to know if your methodology is reliable or not, I will need to apply it consistently in the evaluation of other claims and observe if it produces competing or contradictory outcomes.

I do not believe this to be necessary. Rather, all you need to do is to demonstrate there would be no valid reasons to believe the claims in the NT. Thus far, you have failed to do this. Rather, your conclusion seems to be, the documents in the NT could in fact be reliable. Yes?

I already understand that your methodology has convinced you to believe the claims from the NT. I'm attempting to determine if the methodology you used to arrive at that conclusion is reliable. Using a different methodology to demonstrate a competing or contradictory conclusion about the claims from the NT would not help me determine the reliability of your methodology. Such an exercise would merely demonstrate that two different methodologies produces two different results and reveals nothing about the reliability of either methodology. Since I wouldn't expect a reliable methodology to conclude that two or more competing or contradictory claims are true at the same time, it only seems logical and reasonable to test the methodology by applying it consistently and assess the results accordingly.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #364]
If we were to go on to use my methodology, on competing claims, and it produced the same results, then we are simply left with there being valid reasons to believe both claims, with neither being demonstrated to be either true, or false.

If your methodology were to be consistently applied in the evaluation of claims from other competing or contradictory sources such as the Koran to produce results that would justify acceptance of those claims in addition to those of the NT letters, then such an outcome would demonstrate your methodology is unreliable since Christianity and Islam cannot both be true simultaneously unless you are willing to defend a new polytheist hybrid version of those two monotheistic traditions.

I don't think so. Again, all this would do is to demonstrate there may be valid reasons to believe both, while going on to acknowledge both cannot be correct. It would in no way demonstrate the methodology to be unreliable.

Those results would demonstrate the methodology to be unreliable because, at least on the macro scale, there are no valid reasons to simultaneously believe in two competing or contradictory claims when it is only logically possible for one of them to be true. A reliable methodology would succeed in demonstrating valid reasons to believe only one or none of the claims but not both simultaneously as that outcome ultimately leads to logically contradictory beliefs. If the methodology were to conclude that there are valid reasons to believe both the Islamic set of claims and the Christian set of claims when logic dictates that at least one of them has to be false regardless of whether one or both can be shown to be false, then the methodology would be demonstrably unreliable for failing to provide valid reasons to reject at least one belief that must be false or to withhold belief in either set of claims until the necessary disconfirming evidence becomes available. In other words, the "valid" in the term "valid reasons" becomes falsified when the reasons provided by the methodology are demonstrated to support competing or contradictory beliefs. A methodology producing "valid reasons" that are subsequently rendered invalid by their ability to affirm logically contradictory outcomes when consistently applied to competing or contradictory claims would be inherently unreliable.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #364]

For the time being, if your methodology is only being applied in the evaluation of the claims from the NT letters and no methodology is being applied in the evaluation of competing or contradictory claims from other sources because you aren't interested in investigating those claims, then I have little choice but to perceive such an inconsistent approach as constituting a type of double-standard in the sense that you are willing to apply your standard to the NT letters but not to those other sources of information.

How is it a double standard to come to the conclusion that there are valid reasons to believe the Christian claims, while going on to acknowledge there very well may be valid reasons to believe other competing claims? It would be a double standard for me to insist, there would be no reasons to believe the competing claims, simply because there would be valid reasons to believe the Christian claims.

Have you only applied your methodology to the evaluation of the claims from the NT and applied no methodology to the evaluation of competing or contradictory claims from non-Christian sources because you aren't interested in investigating those claims? If so, you have exhibited a double-standard by arbitrarily privileging the NT claims with a thorough investigation using your methodology while failing to extend the same privilege to the competing or contradictory claims from non-Christian sources.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #364]
Your methodology seems to have brought you to the conclusion, that the NT documents could in fact be reliable. So then, if we move your methodology over to the Koran, would it produce the same exact conclusion?

The application of my methodology to the investigation of the Koran and the NT documents concludes that those manuscripts and letters are not sufficiently reliable for me to justify a confident belief in their claims about the occurrences of particular events. This is because the available facts and evidence they provide do not adequately serve to distinguish between long dead people who witnessed particular events, long dead people who mistakenly but sincerely believed they witnessed particular events, long dead people who embellished accounts of particular events, and long dead people who had various motivations to fabricate accounts of particular events. The conclusion that both competing sources are unreliable does not necessitate the affirmation of logically contradictory beliefs and does not provide me with a justification to suspect my methodology is unreliable. Of course, this outcome results from the consistent application of my methodology to competing or contradictory claims, but you are under no obligation to accept it or use it. Maybe your own methodology is able to produce valid reasons to make those distinctions based on the available facts and evidence, but at what cost if it also happens to produces "valid reasons" to affirm false beliefs when consistently applied to the investigation of competing or contradictory claims?