The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 11:23 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:47 amIt ill behooves the Bible apologists to appeal to 'academics' when they reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible. Tot often, I have seen 'Academics' turn out to be Bible experts who know what's in it front to back and yet don't see any of the problems. 'Babes and sucklings' I have never seen anywhere else and the two donkeys is dismissed or ignored by these Academics and experts, so don't you go appealing to that Authority as anyone is open to question, especially experts in a book of dubious old stories.
It ill behooves the atheist apologist to claim the Christian apologist is doing something they aren’t doing. I don’t reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible because I don’t think the Bible is a science textbook making scientific claims.
Whatever you do or do not reject, Bible apologists reject science, often, when it conflicts with the Bible and you must know it. Dammit the resurrectio - claim itself is of a miracle because it conflicts with science.
The academics I’m speaking about are actual academics, Christian and non-Christian, some of which are also Biblical experts and some who are not, but not for what I’m appealing to them for. And even these academics I’m talking about are open to question. The point is that you are out of touch with current academics (including non-Christians and Christians who aren’t theologically trained) if you think the moral argument and others are officially done.
It 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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:47 amThe morality arguments is of course done, for the following reasons (at risk of a digression of the thread), the insistence on an objective basis by the Theists is as silly as demanding a cosmic law of art or literature. The best you will get is evolved instinct.
There is no indication that religion contributes much to morality - rather increased secularisation has improved it.
Third to finger pointing at secularists makes the theist side look bad - secularists do right without hope of reward other than making society run smoothly - the believers do it because they hope for divine handouts.
finally, we can do without appeal to ignorance. We may not know 'were morality comes from' but that not only does not mean a god (name your own) but the go - to hypothesis is evoled social instincts which are still going on. No god necessary.
No, it is not done, of course, as evidenced by the current philosophical literature that still speaks to this from Christians and non-Christians. These are conclusions you have that deserve to be pursued, so if you want to back them up, then start another thread, tell me about it to make sure I don’t miss it, and I’ll share my thoughts there.
I 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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:47 amNow, back to the topic. Jesus being deluded, is one other option, and rational and hoping God was intending him to succeed rather than deluded,is also another option.
How is this different than Jesus being a lunatic?
That'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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:47 amBut of course, nothing in the Gospels being credible without question is another, so the very basis of what Jesus said and did to assess character and personality fails anyway.
If you want to provide an argument that supports this positive claim that the documents are not reliable in giving us Jesus’ teachings, go ahead and I’ll share my thoughts here or in another thread if you think it off topic.
It 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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:47 amDo you see how limited the C.S Lewis' options are, so as to be a flawed apologetic, if not actually a strawman?
I definitely don’t think it is a strawman, as he would have been appealing to questions he and people he knew had. But I said “legend” should be added, so I do think his trilemma is limited. You haven’t shown the tetralemma/quadremma (whatever it should be called) is flawed, but keep sharing more points and you may get me there.
As 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