Either Or

[liamconnor]

The following is a loose quote from a scholar:

Since the canvas is drawn, and since several titles given to Jesus in the fourth gospel also appear in the synoptics, it is reasonable to presume that what we see in John are numerous segments of common gospel tradition already available to John in written form when John determined to write his gospel.

The key phrase is "it is reasonable to presume". This is not a peculiar maneuver. Historians are constantly presuming something because they see the presumption to be reasonable.

Two Questions:

1) Suppose I told you that on this presumption the scholar launches a devastating attack against the Christian case? Would you say his presumption is reasonable? Why, why not?

2) Suppose I told you the author were a Christian, and launched a defense for Christianity based on this presumption. Would you say the presumption is unreasonable? Why, why not?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't get the cloak and daggers aspect,

Fair enough.

I remain convinced that the majority (there are a few members who escape this category) of atheists here are hyperskeptics/presuppositionalists. I simply designed an OP to test my theory.

I fully admit that other OP's of mine and/or posts are proving more fruitful in my research.

This one is no longer of interest to me.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't get the cloak and daggers aspect,

Fair enough.

I remain convinced that the majority (there are a few members who escape this category) of atheists here are hyperskeptics/presuppositionalists. I simply designed an OP to test my theory.

I fully admit that other OP's of mine and/or posts are proving more fruitful in my research.

This one is no longer of interest to me.

Could you sate my curiousity and unveil this big argument anyway?

[benchwarmer]

This one is no longer of interest to me.

Yet another thread bites the dust. Is there an award for most threads started that I'm unaware of?

Could you sate my curiousity and unveil this big argument anyway?

My guess is that he was going to see which way the replies swayed and attack the other position. We would have all been shocked and amazed.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't get the cloak and daggers aspect,

Fair enough.

I remain convinced that the majority (there are a few members who escape this category) of atheists here are hyperskeptics/presuppositionalists. I simply designed an OP to test my theory.

I fully admit that other OP's of mine and/or posts are proving more fruitful in my research.

This one is no longer of interest to me.

Could you sate my curiousity and unveil this big argument anyway?

I'm curious of this as well. Apparently we are meant to know this great argument...

[McCulloch]

Two Questions:

1) Suppose I told you that on this presumption the scholar launches a devastating attack against the Christian case? Would you say his presumption is reasonable? Why, why not?

Yes, the presumption is most definately reasonable. Anyone who launches a devistating attack on Christianity has got to be true and right. Whatever presumptions that are necessary to be made in order to attack Christianity have to be reasonable in my view.

2) Suppose I told you the author were a Christian, and launched a defense for Christianity based on this presumption. Would you say the presumption is unreasonable? Why, why not?

No, the presumption is absolutely unwarranted. Christianity is evil and must be invalidated by any and every means possible. The very fact that the presumption has been used to defend Christianity clearly shows that the presumption is unreasonable.

Now suppose that there is a scholarly debater who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is biased and intellectually dishonest. Would that debater stop initiating debates which insult the integrity of the other debaters once he got confirmation of his views?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

And yet the first answer, the only real and honest (non-exemplified) answer, the one that dispelled his presuppositionalist theory, he ignored.

Why?