Common Gripe From Christian Apologists

[POI]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

This means this publication is then set on higher alert. This is one of the reasons why the Biblical account is not just another line of evidence, and is instead scene with higher levels of scrutiny. IMHO, the Bible is one of the OG's of 'fake news'. But sure, sometimes even 'fake news' can have nuggets or kernels or truth within them, which is why Bible believers can debate some "facts" or "plausible considerations", in some cases.

For example, people are growing tired of all legacy media, or what many refer to as 'fake news'. Newer platforms are now being created, in the hopes of providing more objective, unopinionated, and/or unslanted reporting. But maybe this is not ultimately possible?

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

[POI]

Okay, so we reject the resurrection because it would be impossible, and we reject the idea that the resurrection story was made up because that would be impossible.

You clearly did not read my replies thoroughly. You are half right. Allow me to reiterate. If it were to turn out that we are left with only two viable options, we would still select the later. The former being a) he is risen and the later being b) it was made up. Why? Rotting bodies never rise, but people make stuff up all the time.

So then, any thinking person would attempt to move on to another scenario which may be possible and think through what all that would have involved.

I provided a scenario, and you completely skipped it. Jesus was likely never buried, as told from the Gospels, which throws the entire storyline off something fierce.

I'll address more later...

[POI]

My friend, you do not even have to do the work here, because the scholars have done the work for you, and there is no known scenario which would be possible. The thing is, you have to know this. Because you see, if any of the scholars had come up with this neat and tidy explanation of the facts we can know which would even be possible, we would all be aware of this scenario. It does not exist, and this does not matter to you because you hold out hope, against all hope that there must and has to be a scenario out there that may be possible. This is exactly what you are doing because you have not come up with any scenario which would be a possibility, and yet you have somehow convinced yourself that there must and has to be another explanation. There is no known explanation of the facts we can know which would not include the extreme extraordinary, which means you have to exchange one extraordinary tale for another, or you have to hope against all hope there is an unknown explanation out there.

I spent several responses doing just this. Did you miss them?

But let us continue to think about your situation. You have no explanation of the facts we can know,

I've explained, in more than one response, how it is likely Jesus was not buried, as told, and why. And also, why this matters.

but what you do know is you were convinced a dead man rose from the dead for decades of your life, only to come to realize that you did no thinking on your own because you simply took the word of others and you simply repeated the words of these others. So then, you decide to begin to listen to those on the other side, and what these folks have to say now sounds good to the ears, and you are simply repeating arguments you have heard from others.

Nah. I came to understand Roman culture a bit, and also read up a bit on Pilate. When doing so, the later part of the Jesus saga, as told from the "Gospels", is like trying to place a square peg into a round hole. And since we know the Gospels are corrupt, it makes sense to just discard some of the expressed absurdities.

Moreover, what is even more fascinating is the fact that you have convinced yourself that there is no possibility of error on your part. We know that you are under the impression that there is no possibility of error on your part, because you will not even allow it to be a possibility that those who hold to a different conclusion than you could have possibly used any sort of reason,

Please recall the "missing keys" analogy given in a prior response. No matter how many naturalistic explanations seemingly come up blank, lending any more credence to a claim that "the keys moved themselves" is still absurd.

and you are able to fix your fingers to type out that it has to be the case that those opposed to you must, and have to be guilty of cognitive dissonance which again is your repeating what you have heard from others, because this is not an argument you have come up with on your own.

It's ironic, I can readily admit my cognitive dissonance(s). Can you at least do the same? Since we know rotting bodies don't rise, it is illogical to still make an exception, especially based upon both shotty testimonials and evidence(s).

I am sorry, but I am not seeing a whole lot of difference between the thinking when you were convinced a dead man rose from the dead, as opposed to the thinking now that you came to realize that others were thinking for you.

Well, when you continue to set up such a strawman scenario, I don't really blame you for 'concluding' this.

I cannot help but think that it must be sad to know that you cannot demonstrate the position you hold and cannot afford to even consider the idea that anyone at all opposed could have possibly used reason to oppose you.

Oh, I can. You have just ignored it.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #27]

Since you are a 'minimal facts' Christiann, let's get to it. I created a new topic, in your honor:

viewtopic.php?t=42567

[RBD]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible detractors:

- Does the source present with a possible political or ideological bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy spiritualism? YES

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method?

Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above ideologically apparent violation(s) to the historical method?

Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

Exactly. Bible inerrancy demands either believe it all, or reject it all. The lukewarm are just people that want to draw their own personal lines, and appear principled...

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

[POI]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible detractors:

- Does the source present with a possible political or ideological bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy spiritualism? YES

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method?

Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above ideologically apparent violation(s) to the historical method?

Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

Exactly. Bible inerrancy demands either believe it all, or reject it all. The lukewarm are just people that want to draw their own personal lines, and appear principled...

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Does the OP provide an adequate response to Otseng's gripe, as to why skeptics and doubters more-so scrutinize claims, if they should come from the Bible, verses from some other source(s)? Before you answer, allow me to post a follow up quote made to another interlocutor in this thread. This is the some of the doubter's perspective, which is why we ask for supporting sources to back up the Biblical claim(s):

(from the skeptic's perspective in post 13):

The skeptic is warranted to proceed with extra caution, regarding any claim which is made from 'the Bible' <verses> some other 'sources'. Why? Because from Genesis to Revelation, it is a) utterly filled with all sorts of 'supernatural' claims, b) the Gospels greatly conflict with one another, as well as c) being compromised by "the church".

AND:

This collection of claims is so heavily compromised, as well as being riddled with so many supernatural unbelievable claims, the entire collection, via "the Bible", is instead to be completely dismissed. Which is often times why skeptics ask for non-Biblical source(s) to back up any claim from 'the Bible.

[RBD]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible detractors:

- Does the source present with a possible political or ideological bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy spiritualism? YES

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method?

Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above ideologically apparent violation(s) to the historical method?

Does the OP provide an adequate response to Otseng's gripe, as to why skeptics and doubters more-so scrutinize claims, if they should come from the Bible, verses from some other source(s)?

The simple observation is that the self-concluding 'questions', can rightly be demanded from both sides. Especially when from ideologically-driven claims of historical violations in the Bible, that are never proven.

The objective skeptic is not interested in claims of factual error, but only proof of factual error. Questions based upon claims alone are only ideological diversions from the facts, that can be proven or disproven.

Before you answer, allow me to post a follow up quote made to another interlocutor in this thread. This is the some of the doubter's perspective, which is why we ask for supporting sources to back up the Biblical claim(s):

(from the skeptic's perspective in post 13):

The skeptic is warranted to proceed with extra caution, regarding any claim which is made from 'the Bible' <verses> some other 'sources'. Why? Because from Genesis to Revelation, it is a) utterly filled with all sorts of 'supernatural' claims, b) the Gospels greatly conflict with one another, as well as c) being compromised by "the church".

AND:

This collection of claims is so heavily compromised, as well as being riddled with so many supernatural unbelievable claims, the entire collection, via "the Bible", is instead to be completely dismissed. Which is often times why skeptics ask for non-Biblical source(s) to back up any claim from 'the Bible.
[/quote]
These are not 'doubters' and 'skeptics', but confirmed accusers of Bible conflict, compromise, and unbelievability. Rather than demanding proof from the Bible, they are properly demanded to prove Bible conflict, compromise, and unbelievability.

The challenge here, that needs to be understood, is not whether all the Bible can be physically proven true or not, since some of Bible requires spiritual faith. The only verifiable challenge is to prove whether all the Bible can be believed or not.

There are two physical criteria to do so: First, the factual record in the Bible, that can be fact-checked against any known outside sources. And second, any conflict within the Bible, that can be fact-checked by objective study of the Book itself.

So long as no inconsistency within the Book is found, nor factual record proven false, then the whole Book can be believed, including those things that cannot be physically fact-checked, but only spiritually accepted.

Whether someone chooses to believe the whole Bible or not, is irrelevant to the physical fact-checking that can be done.

Conclusion: If anyone demands all the Bible be proven true, then simply prove any of the Bible can't be true.

Unless any of the Bible is proven false, then anyone has the reasonable right to believe it all. And no one can factually say it can't all possibly be true. Unbelief doesn't prove anything.

Many fair challenges to Bible inerrancy are given, and no doubt more can be given. But I personally have found none of them sufficient to prove the Bible record is proven false or inconsistent.

Demanding outside proof of a record, does not disprove it. And relying on personal interpretation of certain writings to appear inconsistent, does not prove inconsistency.

I do not have any gripe against any honest skeptic demanding outside proof, in order to justifiably believe the Bible record. My only gripe is anyone demanding I prove the whole Bible by outside sources, in order for me to justifiably believe it. Also, I have no gripe about anyone else not believing any or all of the Bible. My only gripe is when they ideologically say no one can justifiably believe it either, because they claim Bible error without ever proving it.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Thanks for the response. It took every ounce of me not to address some of your replies. The focus of this topic is to put one very specific topic to bed. I hope the OP, and the follow up in post 13, sheds a little more light. The goal is to not get such a gripe from Christian interlocutors in the future.

[POI]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #20]

Speaking of 'sidebars', most of this entire exchange has been a sidebar. Though I appreciate the response, I would like to remain focused on the OP request in this thread. I got a little caught up in such a sidebar with another interlocutor, for which we have been exchanging, for years now. If you wish, feel free to create a new topic. I created one here (viewtopic.php?t=42567), but it may not address what you are referring to here. Thanks.

[1DoubtingThomas]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:


For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

One biblical story line that is not possible with logic and reason within the primitive and barbaric Christian Jewish Bible, shades the rest of it as a total and complete MYTH!

EXAMPLE: Noah's Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (Genesis 6:15), there are 1.2 million different animal species x 2 equals 2.4 million of animals that were supposed to be upon the Ark, notwithstanding, fresh water fish, insects, etc. To add more MYTH to this story, Noah and his incestuous family to repopulate the world, were on the waters for over a year when doing the simple math starting with Genesis 7:11 until Genesis 8:13-14!

Lest we forget, 2 pair of each dinosaur specie had to be upon the Ark as well, where the specie of Argentinosaurus alone was 130 feet in length, 70 feet tall, and are 110 tons apiece, that had to fit in an Ark that was only 45 feet high! Quit laughing at the expense of pseudo-christians!

Can you spell MYTH? YES !!!


It is truly sad that pseudo-christians live in a life of total delusion and fear of Hell in the 21st Century of science and reason!




.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Thanks for the response. It took every ounce of me not to address some of your replies. The focus of this topic is to put one very specific topic to bed. I hope the OP, and the follow up in post 13, sheds a little more light. The goal is to not get such a gripe from Christian interlocutors in the future.

Fair enough. No gripes from me if anyone demands proof of anything the Bible says and records. I have no gripe about anyone choosing not to believe any or all of the Bible. I'm not an ideologue in need of proselytizing people to the Bible.

My only interest is if anyone says they can prove any Bible inconsistency or error. Then I'd like to see it for myself.