NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad

Post #1

Post by East of Eden »

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #31

Post by East of Eden »

Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
dusk wrote:
East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.
Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.
Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?
Cite?
At the risk of a massive derail . . . if, as you have asserted, the availability of these eyewitnesses would have ensured accuracy over something as simple as the identity of Joseph's father - wouldn't they? Yet the writers of Matthew and Luke managed to contradict each other on this point and spectacularly so over the lineage of Jesus from David.
From Bob Passantino:

<snip>

Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by . . .

<snip>

We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions� raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises."
Oh yes. A Christian apologist answers the questions
That seems to offend you.
. . by suggesting multiple 'viable' explanations exist - picking one or two - and declaring that the contradictions are not so - therefore all other contradictions are also answered. It's an old ploy, as long as you are willing to accept the unfounded premise that the 'viable' explanation/s chosen is factual then you're going to agree aren't you?
And you're going to disagree, if you've already made up your mind to reject God.
Oh - and you also need to omit the fact that Bob skips around the issue where the writer of Luke explicitly states that Joseph was Jesus' father before inexplicably deciding to trace his lineage through Mary - which in itself is a quandary . . . a matriarchal lineage from a 1st Century Jewish author is problematic in itself . . . . . . . if you don't chose to ignore it.
You would think if the Gospel accounts were a made up conspiracy as you seem to allege (with no evidence to back that fantastic theory up), there would be none of these minor differences. The attorney and former atheist Frank Morison, who set out to disprove Christianity and ended up becoming a Christian after looking at the evidence (see "Who Moved the Stone"), commented that the Gospel accounts are very similar to modern court proceedings where multiple witnesses testify on the same event. There is agreement on the big picture but disagreement on minor issues. Again, if it was all fiction wouldn't the authors be smart enough to make sure it lined up 100%?

BTW, the explanations I gave are reasonable to me.
I have said nothing about false religions. You introduced that wild goose. Your opinion was that the Bible is the only revealed text. Without support it remains your opinion and has no weight in the discussion.
I agree it is my opinion, just as your views are your opinion, but what kind of support would satisfy you?
So, according to your interpretation, I assume that your position is something akin to "he wrote in riddles that could only be deciphered by apologists". Would that be accurate?
So according to you, that minor issue you brought up would prevent the average person from understanding the Gospel events?
Have we met? I don't think so. Rather than assuming that you know more than I do about other religions and what I believe;
I never said that. Do you not believe all other religions are 100% wrong at their heart, i.e. belief in a deity and revealed truth? 90%? 80%?.......
and then using that assumption as an excuse to introduce another wild goose into the discussion, why don't you address the question I posed? Have you ever applied the same level of scrutiny that you used to identify these 'false' religions to your own?
No, have you studied all world religions equally to your own worldview?
Another diversion. Shall we go back to the original question? What evidence could you possibly bring to bear that would convince a non-believer, muslim or mormon that your scripture is the authentic revealed text?
Already answered above. If you believe the plain fact than many non-Christians become Christians, then there are probably many reasons. Maybe you should ask them.
So you retract your assertion that Mohammed isn't ratified in the texts of 'serious' historians? Surely, you're not going to take the intellectually dishonest approach of ignoring this, are you?
Nice red herring there, do you think I am denying that Mohammed existed or something? I wouldn't call ignoring an irrelevant question intellectually dishonest.
Surprisingly for some, there are many people who have spent their entire academic lives studying religious texts . . . and they are not apologists. Perhaps you should expand your reading to encompass some of the academic reviews of the bible? I'd recommend that you try reading something by Bart Ehrman for starters
I wouldn't waste my time with Bart.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/200 ... -bart.html

A possible solution is . . . <SNIP>
Perhaps the best solution would be . . . <SNIP>
Dr. J. E. Rosscup of Talbot Seminary adheres to a view . . . . <SNIP>

"authority' of apologists was discussed above
Funny how the only real authorities are people like Bart who agree with you. I bet you also take the Jesus Seminar seriously.
Perhaps you might consider reading some academic analyses of the Testimonium Flavianium as well?
I have, which is why I said what I did.
Just seems a little odd that Josephus, who happily devotes pages recording the history of non-descript citizens and assorted criminal personalities, was unable to write more than about ten lines about a holy man who had performed "wondrous works" and was able to attract huge crowds to hear him speak.
Why would he, he wasn't a believer. That's the circular reasoning that goes on here, Christian ancient testimony is somehow 'suspect', what is asked for is non-Christian testimony to all the Gospel events. If someone saw the miracles wouldn't they more than likely become a Christian, and thus, a suspect witness, at least according to the skeptics? If you saw Jesus do miracles, would you become a Christian?
Unfortunately, my attempt at sarcasm wasn't successful. I was attempting to point out that there were no eye witnesses around when Muhammed had those verses revealed to him - therefore there is no-one who could remind Muhammed that these were in fact, stories that he had heard from the christians and jews who lived in his local community.
But what motivation would he have to validate another religion? It says something that 600 years later even Muhommed didn't deny the miracles, and neither did the writers of the Babylonian Talmud.
I'd happily start another thread - but there has been no evidence provided yet. I don't consider that baseless assertion and the illogical output of apologists constitutes evidence.

If you have something else - let me know.
What would you consider valid testimony 2,000 years after the facts other than the testimony of those who were there and the evidence of their dramatically changed lives?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
His Name Is John
Site Supporter
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
Location: London, England

Post #32

Post by His Name Is John »

East of Eden wrote:
His Name Is John wrote:Neither should have been printed.

It's just that Catholic's have thicker skins.
And they don't typically issue death threats against their opponents.
To be fair, neither do most Muslims either. It's just a small, yet vocal, minority.
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�
- G.K. Chesterton

“A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive.�
- G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Atrax Robustus
Apprentice
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:47 am
Location: Home of Atrax robustus

Post #33

Post by Atrax Robustus »

East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
dusk wrote:
East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.
Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.
Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?
Cite?
At the risk of a massive derail . . . if, as you have asserted, the availability of these eyewitnesses would have ensured accuracy over something as simple as the identity of Joseph's father - wouldn't they? Yet the writers of Matthew and Luke managed to contradict each other on this point and spectacularly so over the lineage of Jesus from David.
From Bob Passantino:

<snip>

Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by . . .

<snip>

We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions� raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises."
Oh yes. A Christian apologist answers the questions
That seems to offend you.
You read me wrong. Taking offence is a problem for people who believe that their opinion is more important than that of others. I consider it to be a personal bias issue and I deal with it through assigning it to the 'who really cares if you're offended' rubbish bin.

Although I'm not impressed that you mined that phrase in order to imply so.
East of Eden wrote:
. . by suggesting multiple 'viable' explanations exist - picking one or two - and declaring that the contradictions are not so - therefore all other contradictions are also answered. It's an old ploy, as long as you are willing to accept the unfounded premise that the 'viable' explanation/s chosen is factual then you're going to agree aren't you?
And you're going to disagree, if you've already made up your mind to reject God.
The initial premise used in the explanation is flawed. Through slight of hand, laypersons are led to incorrectly assume that the multiple 'viable' explanations are fact - therefore they are happy to accept Bob's asserions that there are no contradictions.

Of course I disagee! If, however, any one of these 'viable' explanations were demonstrably true - then I believe that I am intellectually mature enough to reconsider the argument in that different light and revise my conclusions accordingly.
East of Eden wrote:
Oh - and you also need to omit the fact that Bob skips around the issue where the writer of Luke explicitly states that Joseph was Jesus' father before inexplicably deciding to trace his lineage through Mary - which in itself is a quandary . . . a matriarchal lineage from a 1st Century Jewish author is problematic in itself . . . . . . . if you don't chose to ignore it.
You would think if the Gospel accounts were a made up conspiracy as you seem to allege (with no evidence to back that fantastic theory up), there would be none of these minor differences.
Conspiracy theory? :blink: I have neither alleged nor implied anything of the sort. Remember, it was you who asserted that it was Jesus/God himself who inspired (and you actually went to the extent of saying that he wrote) these texts - - - I am merely questioning how that can be so noting the contradictions and discrepancies. You know - he's supposed to omniscient etc?
East of Eden wrote: . . . if it was all fiction wouldn't the authors be smart enough to make sure it lined up 100%?
Well if, as you assert, it was God himself who authored them - why don't they line up 100%?

On the other hand, why would the authors have any need to do so? They had no reason to expect that their stories were going to be incorporated into a holy text 2-300 years later.
East of Eden wrote:BTW, the explanations I gave are reasonable to me.
I'd hope so. You took the time to cut and paste them after all.
East of Eden wrote:
I have said nothing about false religions. You introduced that wild goose. Your opinion was that the Bible is the only revealed text. Without support it remains your opinion and has no weight in the discussion.
I agree it is my opinion, just as your views are your opinion, but what kind of support would satisfy you?
The same support that you would require from a mormon or muslim I'd wager.
East of Eden wrote:
So, according to your interpretation, I assume that your position is something akin to "he wrote in riddles that could only be deciphered by apologists". Would that be accurate?
So according to you, that minor issue you brought up would prevent the average person from understanding the Gospel events?
Irrelevant. I am after your explanation about how a text written by Jesus/God (your assertion) could possibly have inconsistencies and contradictions.
East of Eden wrote:
Have we met? I don't think so. Rather than assuming that you know more than I do about other religions and what I believe;
I never said that. Do you not believe all other religions are 100% wrong at their heart, i.e. belief in a deity and revealed truth? 90%? 80%?.......
You stated that you have a much more liberal view of other religions than I:
East of Eden wrote:I actually have a much more liberal view of other religions than you do. You believe that what has most mattered to the majority of men always and everywhere is 100% wrong, while I believe there is a lot of truth in other religions as all men are made in His image and have some truth written in their heart. I simply think where they and Christianity differ, they are wrong and Christianity is right.
I put it to you that nothing could be further from the truth and I consder that closing sentence says much on your liberal views in comparison to mine.
East of Eden wrote:
and then using that assumption as an excuse to introduce another wild goose into the discussion, why don't you address the question I posed? Have you ever applied the same level of scrutiny that you used to identify these 'false' religions to your own?
No, have you studied all world religions equally to your own worldview?
All world religions? No. Many of them? Yes. I have never been a theist/believer and the studies and research I have completed on a wide variety of holy texts, scripture and source manuscripts has done nothing other than affirm my non-belief.
East of Eden wrote:
Another diversion. Shall we go back to the original question? What evidence could you possibly bring to bear that would convince a non-believer, muslim or mormon that your scripture is the authentic revealed text?
Already answered above. If you believe the plain fact than many non-Christians become Christians, then there are probably many reasons. Maybe you should ask them.
Agreed. Your assertion that the Bible is the only authentic revealed text is based solely upon your opinion.
East of Eden wrote:
So you retract your assertion that Mohammed isn't ratified in the texts of 'serious' historians? Surely, you're not going to take the intellectually dishonest approach of ignoring this, are you?
Nice red herring there, do you think I am denying that Mohammed existed or something? I wouldn't call ignoring an irrelevant question intellectually dishonest.
Avoidance - again! :shock:

It was you who implied that the historicity of Jesus was more reliable than that of Mohammed; asked whether Mohammed was mentioned by historians of the stature of Josephus and Tacitus; then you asserted that a mention by 'serious' historians is usually accepted as evidence . . . Remember?

Then, when I offered Sebeos as a hisorian of equal standing - - - you responded that you hadn't heard of him.

Now you avoid and change the question! Forget the red herring - you should be concerned about the crow you are obliged to eat!
East of Eden wrote:
Surprisingly for some, there are many people who have spent their entire academic lives studying religious texts . . . and they are not apologists. Perhaps you should expand your reading to encompass some of the academic reviews of the bible? I'd recommend that you try reading something by Bart Ehrman for starters
I wouldn't waste my time with Bart.
Should I be surprised? :roll:
East of Eden wrote:Funny how the only real authorities are people like Bart who agree with you. I bet you also take the Jesus Seminar seriously.
Pot and kettle :roll: And again with the assumptions of what I believe! I can assure you, there is quite a lot that he has written that I disagree with. Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books or do you rely on book reviews on blogs?
East of Eden wrote:
Perhaps you might consider reading some academic analyses of the Testimonium Flavianium as well?
I have, which is why I said what I did.
Perhaps you could cite some of these. I'd be very interested to review what you do cite as the reason I made this suggestion is based wholly upon what you have said!
East of Eden wrote:
Just seems a little odd that Josephus, who happily devotes pages recording the history of non-descript citizens and assorted criminal personalities, was unable to write more than about ten lines about a holy man who had performed "wondrous works" and was able to attract huge crowds to hear him speak.
Why would he, he wasn't a believer. That's the circular reasoning that goes on here, Christian ancient testimony is somehow 'suspect', what is asked for is non-Christian testimony to all the Gospel events. If someone saw the miracles wouldn't they more than likely become a Christian, and thus, a suspect witness, at least according to the skeptics? If you saw Jesus do miracles, would you become a Christian?
See above.
East of Eden wrote:
Unfortunately, my attempt at sarcasm wasn't successful. I was attempting to point out that there were no eye witnesses around when Muhammed had those verses revealed to him - therefore there is no-one who could remind Muhammed that these were in fact, stories that he had heard from the christians and jews who lived in his local community.
But what motivation would he have to validate another religion? It says something that 600 years later even Muhommed didn't deny the miracles, and neither did the writers of the Babylonian Talmud.
Either you have not studied the Qu'ran or you are ignoring the order of its supposed revelation and the events that occurred over that period in order to support your position. 'Wondrous works' are problematic throughout all of the religious texts; for believers they're always miracles; for believers of another sect or god, they're typically sorcery; and for skeptics they're probably stage magic.
East of Eden wrote:
I'd happily start another thread - but there has been no evidence provided yet. I don't consider that baseless assertion and the illogical output of apologists constitutes evidence.

If you have something else - let me know.
What would you consider valid testimony 2,000 years after the facts other than the testimony of those who were there and the evidence of their dramatically changed lives?
You do realise that there are many theologians and epigraphists who don't agree with you on this point? Don't you?
I [would] take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #34

Post by East of Eden »

His Name Is John wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
His Name Is John wrote:Neither should have been printed.

It's just that Catholic's have thicker skins.
And they don't typically issue death threats against their opponents.
To be fair, neither do most Muslims either. It's just a small, yet vocal, minority.
Who commit about 99% of religiously motivated violence.......
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
His Name Is John
Site Supporter
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
Location: London, England

Post #35

Post by His Name Is John »

East of Eden wrote:Who commit about 99% of religiously motivated violence.......
At the moment.

But anyway, it isn't really 'religiously motivated violence', it is also cultural, where the west does have unfair trading laws with the rest of the world.
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�
- G.K. Chesterton

“A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive.�
- G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #36

Post by East of Eden »

His Name Is John wrote:
East of Eden wrote:Who commit about 99% of religiously motivated violence.......
At the moment.

But anyway, it isn't really 'religiously motivated violence'
When they're yelling 'Allah Akbar' it isn't relgioius?
, it is also cultural, where the west does have unfair trading laws with the rest of the world.
Maybe you're thinking of OWS, I don't know what you mean by unfair trading laws, nothing justifies the crimes these Jihadists do daily.

Let's say it is just isolated nuts, why is it Islam has more nuts than all the rest of the religions put together? :-k
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #37

Post by East of Eden »

Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
dusk wrote:
East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.
Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.
Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?
Cite?
At the risk of a massive derail . . . if, as you have asserted, the availability of these eyewitnesses would have ensured accuracy over something as simple as the identity of Joseph's father - wouldn't they? Yet the writers of Matthew and Luke managed to contradict each other on this point and spectacularly so over the lineage of Jesus from David.
From Bob Passantino:

<snip>

Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by . . .

<snip>

We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions� raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises."
Oh yes. A Christian apologist answers the questions
That seems to offend you.
You read me wrong. Taking offence is a problem for people who believe that their opinion is more important than that of others. I consider it to be a personal bias issue and I deal with it through assigning it to the 'who really cares if you're offended' rubbish bin.

Although I'm not impressed that you mined that phrase in order to imply so.
East of Eden wrote:
. . by suggesting multiple 'viable' explanations exist - picking one or two - and declaring that the contradictions are not so - therefore all other contradictions are also answered. It's an old ploy, as long as you are willing to accept the unfounded premise that the 'viable' explanation/s chosen is factual then you're going to agree aren't you?
And you're going to disagree, if you've already made up your mind to reject God.
The initial premise used in the explanation is flawed. Through slight of hand, laypersons are led to incorrectly assume that the multiple 'viable' explanations are fact - therefore they are happy to accept Bob's asserions that there are no contradictions.

Of course I disagee! If, however, any one of these 'viable' explanations were demonstrably true - then I believe that I am intellectually mature enough to reconsider the argument in that different light and revise my conclusions accordingly.
So that's the only thing stopping you from becoming a Christian, huh?
Conspiracy theory? :blink: I have neither alleged nor implied anything of the sort.
So why did the authors write what they did?
Remember, it was you who asserted that it was Jesus/God himself who inspired (and you actually went to the extent of saying that he wrote) these texts - - - I am merely questioning how that can be so noting the contradictions and discrepancies. You know - he's supposed to omniscient etc?
You're the one who claims there are unexplained contradictions, not me.
Well if, as you assert, it was God himself who authored them - why don't they line up 100%?
I think they pretty much do. God used human authors, which is why there are minor typos in the OT for example. They are irrelevent to the Bible's message.
On the other hand, why would the authors have any need to do so? They had no reason to expect that their stories were going to be incorporated into a holy text 2-300 years later.
Not really, Paul calls his writings Scripture and God-inspired.
The same support that you would require from a mormon or muslim I'd wager.
Your dodge is noted. I asked YOU what evidence would satisfy you, since you asked for the evidence. If you can't answer that, then I'm not obligated to answer your question.
All world religions? No. Many of them? Yes. I have never been a theist/believer and the studies and research I have completed on a wide variety of holy texts, scripture and source manuscripts has done nothing other than affirm my non-belief.
Just as what I have read of Bart has confirmed my belief.
It was you who implied that the historicity of Jesus was more reliable than that of Mohammed; asked whether Mohammed was mentioned by historians of the stature of Josephus and Tacitus; then you asserted that a mention by 'serious' historians is usually accepted as evidence . . . Remember?

Then, when I offered Sebeos as a hisorian of equal standing - - - you responded that you hadn't heard of him.
Why don't you quote Sebesos instead of playing games. The fact I've never heard of him makes your claim that he is equal in stature to Tacitus, called Rome's greatest historian, very doubtful.
Pot and kettle :roll: And again with the assumptions of what I believe! I can assure you, there is quite a lot that he has written that I disagree with. Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books or do you rely on book reviews on blogs?
I have read some of his writings. Since we're recommending books I will recommend to you the writings of a former acquaintance of mine, the late Dr. John RW Stott. There's about 50 to choose from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/world ... wanted=all
See above.
You didn't answer my question, unless I missed it: If you saw Jesus perform miracles, would you become a Christian, thereby making your testimony invalid to skeptics living 2,000 years later?
Either you have not studied the Qu'ran or you are ignoring the order of its supposed revelation and the events that occurred over that period in order to support your position.
Does the Koran mention the miracles of Jesus or does it not?
'Wondrous works' are problematic throughout all of the religious texts; for believers they're always miracles; for believers of another sect or god, they're typically sorcery; and for skeptics they're probably stage magic.
Which category was Josephus?
You do realise that there are many theologians and epigraphists who don't agree with you on this point? Don't you?
Equally true of you.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Atrax Robustus
Apprentice
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:47 am
Location: Home of Atrax robustus

Post #38

Post by Atrax Robustus »

East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
And you're going to disagree, if you've already made up your mind to reject God.
The initial premise used in the explanation is flawed. Through slight of hand, laypersons are led to incorrectly assume that the multiple 'viable' explanations are fact - therefore they are happy to accept Bob's asserions that there are no contradictions.

Of course I disagee! If, however, any one of these 'viable' explanations were demonstrably true - then I believe that I am intellectually mature enough to reconsider the argument in that different light and revise my conclusions accordingly.
So that's the only thing stopping you from becoming a Christian, huh?
It's only one of the things that stop me from becoming a theist.

Tell me, what would you do if a muslim provided an irrefutable explanation that proved that the Qu'ran was inspired by divine revelation?

(BTW, your avoidance of the first part of my quote is noted).
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:Conspiracy theory? :blink: I have neither alleged nor implied anything of the sort.
So why did the authors write what they did?
I don't know. My conclusion at this point, is that the gospels are seperate attempts to record a story that was, until then, maintained as verbal tradition. The contradictions and inconsistencies are the result of inevitable variation of the same story - a chinese whispers problem followed by embellishment and interpretation of the text that would have occurred as the original text underwent multiple copying by multiple copyists.
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote: Remember, it was you who asserted that it was Jesus/God himself who inspired (and you actually went to the extent of saying that he wrote) these texts - - - I am merely questioning how that can be so noting the contradictions and discrepancies. You know - he's supposed to omniscient etc?
You're the one who claims there are unexplained contradictions, not me.
No - I have pointed out that the method employed to explain away the contradictions by your cut and paste apologetics is fundamentally flawed. You have refused to acknowledge or respond to that and you are now attempting to shift the burden.
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:Well if, as you assert, it was God himself who authored them - why don't they line up 100%?
I think they pretty much do. God used human authors, which is why there are minor typos in the OT for example. They are irrelevent to the Bible's message.
OK. So at least we've established that God wasn't the author. Thank you.

Want to cite some examples of these minor 'typos' from the Old Testament and comment on why they are irrelevant?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:On the other hand, why would the authors have any need to do so? They had no reason to expect that their stories were going to be incorporated into a holy text 2-300 years later.
Not really, Paul calls his writings Scripture and God-inspired.
Cite? If you're referring to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 --- I believe the Apostle Paul was referring to the OT - the Gospels and NT hadn't been composed at the time would have made the statement.

Joseph Smith presented his writings as scripture and inspired by God - on what basis do you discredit his assertion but support the assertion ascribed to Paul?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:The same support that you would require from a mormon or muslim I'd wager.
Your dodge is noted. I asked YOU what evidence would satisfy you, since you asked for the evidence. If you can't answer that, then I'm not obligated to answer your question.
No dodge intended. I am unable to overlook the screaming logical flaw associated with a conclusion that Christian scripture is divinely inspired - because the bible says so. With that howling example excluded from the 'evidence' I don't believe that any valid evidence exists. You consider that the Christian bible is divinely inspired - therefore I asked you for your evidence.

Let's face it, religions other than Christianity rely on the infallibility of their own scripture by employing the same logical flaw. What evidence would YOU need before YOU accepted that THEIR scripture was divinely inspired?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:All world religions? No. Many of them? Yes. I have never been a theist/believer and the studies and research I have completed on a wide variety of holy texts, scripture and source manuscripts has done nothing other than affirm my non-belief.
Just as what I have read of Bart has confirmed my belief.
:roll: If you're going to make comment - why not make it relevant?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:It was you who implied that the historicity of Jesus was more reliable than that of Mohammed; asked whether Mohammed was mentioned by historians of the stature of Josephus and Tacitus; then you asserted that a mention by 'serious' historians is usually accepted as evidence . . . Remember?

Then, when I offered Sebeos as a hisorian of equal standing - - - you responded that you hadn't heard of him.
Why don't you quote Sebesos instead of playing games. The fact I've never heard of him makes your claim that he is equal in stature to Tacitus, called Rome's greatest historian, very doubtful.
No games. You're capable of research and there's plenty of translations available on the web for anybody who wishes to exercise intellectual honesty and integrity. I'll give you a hint: read Chapter 30.

The fact that you have never heard of Sebeos might also indicate that your exposure to Levantine history and awareness of relevant historical sources is somewhat limited. Would that indicate that your knowledge is largely attributable to Christian doctrine and apologetics websites?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:Pot and kettle :roll: And again with the assumptions of what I believe! I can assure you, there is quite a lot that he has written that I disagree with. Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books or do you rely on book reviews on blogs?
I have read some of his writings. Since we're recommending books I will recommend to you the writings of a former acquaintance of mine, the late Dr. John RW Stott. There's about 50 to choose from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/world ... wanted=all
Unlike you, I will provide a valid response. On the bookshelf to my immediate left I have well thumbed copies of: Basic Christianity, The Cross of Christ and The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. I don't limit my reading to sources that agree with my currrent understanding of a subject and I enjoy identifying and challenging my own personal biases.
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:See above.
You didn't answer my question, unless I missed it: If you saw Jesus perform miracles, would you become a Christian, thereby making your testimony invalid to skeptics living 2,000 years later?
I didn't answer your question simply because it is a digression from the discussion regarding the academic analyses of the Testimonium Flavianum that you are basing your assertions on. So, to restate the request you have avoided - please cite those academic analyses.
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:Either you have not studied the Qu'ran or you are ignoring the order of its supposed revelation and the events that occurred over that period in order to support your position.
Does the Koran mention the miracles of Jesus or does it not?
Digression again! The discussion was focussing on why Mohammed would quote the miracles of Jesus as they were 'revealed' in the Qu'ran. I hadn't denied that fact - but you're now attempting to make the mention of Jesus miracles in the Qu'ran some sort of point scoring exercise.

FWIW - do you know that the Qu'ran attributes miracles to Jesus that - for some reason - didn't make it into the bible?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:'Wondrous works' are problematic throughout all of the religious texts; for believers they're always miracles; for believers of another sect or god, they're typically sorcery; and for skeptics they're probably stage magic.
Which category was Josephus?
Nice try! You extract a sentence from my response regarding the Qu'ran and attempt another diversion. If you want to talk about Josephus, let's get back to those academic analyses shall we?
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:You do realise that there are many theologians and epigraphists who don't agree with you on this point? Don't you?
Equally true of you.
Indeed! It would appear though, that I am open to considering the conclusions of those with whom I don't agree and, if they convince me that they are correct, I am also intellectually mature enough to change my position.
I [would] take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #39

Post by East of Eden »

Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Atrax Robustus wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
And you're going to disagree, if you've already made up your mind to reject God.
The initial premise used in the explanation is flawed. Through slight of hand, laypersons are led to incorrectly assume that the multiple 'viable' explanations are fact - therefore they are happy to accept Bob's asserions that there are no contradictions.

Of course I disagee! If, however, any one of these 'viable' explanations were demonstrably true - then I believe that I am intellectually mature enough to reconsider the argument in that different light and revise my conclusions accordingly.
So that's the only thing stopping you from becoming a Christian, huh?
It's only one of the things that stop me from becoming a theist.

Tell me, what would you do if a muslim provided an irrefutable explanation that proved that the Qu'ran was inspired by divine revelation?
If it were irrefutable, yes. Do you have one?
I don't know.
If you rule out that the Gospel events really happened, you need to come up with a coherent alternate theory of why they would say these things and go to their deaths to defend them, yet you don't know.
My conclusion at this point, is that the gospels are seperate attempts to record a story that was, until then, maintained as verbal tradition. The contradictions and inconsistencies are the result of inevitable variation of the same story - a chinese whispers problem followed by embellishment and interpretation of the text that would have occurred as the original text underwent multiple copying by multiple copyists.
We have fragments of the NT from 114 AD that are the same as today. The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the OT hasn't changed, why would you assume the NT has without evidence? Wishful thinking?
No - I have pointed out that the method employed to explain away the contradictions by your cut and paste apologetics is fundamentally flawed.
Your opinion. I remember reading an article on this subject once where the author pointed out many historical events of the last 500 years where contemporary historians got details differently. By your reasoning, these events therefore never happened. As I said before, the Gospels are no different than other human testimony, agreement on the big picture, but minor differences on the small things, which are not necessarily contradictions.
OK. So at least we've established that God wasn't the author. Thank you.
Huh?
Want to cite some examples of these minor 'typos' from the Old Testament and comment on why they are irrelevant?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/numerical.html
Cite? If you're referring to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 --- I believe the Apostle Paul was referring to the OT - the Gospels and NT hadn't been composed at the time would have made the statement.
No, I wasn't talking about II Tim. 3:16-17. In 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul stated,

“If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.�

In Galatians 1:11-12, he also wrote,

“For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ.�

Then in 1 Corinthians 2, Paul declared that what he taught was from God even to every word and that this was from the Spirit. In I Thessalonians 2:13 Paul says,

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."
Joseph Smith presented his writings as scripture and inspired by God - on what basis do you discredit his assertion but support the assertion ascribed to Paul?
Here is a good summary by an ex-Mormon:

http://www.exmormon.org/prophet.htm

His prophetic batting average was pretty lousy.
No dodge intended.
So why didn't you answer my question of what would it take for you to believe?
Let's face it, religions other than Christianity rely on the infallibility of their own scripture by employing the same logical flaw. What evidence would YOU need before YOU accepted that THEIR scripture was divinely inspired?
Fulfilling prophecy, performing miracles, and rising from the dead would be a good start.
If you're going to make comment - why not make it relevant?
You just made a similar comment. Why the double standard?
No games. You're capable of research and there's plenty of translations available on the web for anybody who wishes to exercise intellectual honesty and integrity. I'll give you a hint: read Chapter 30.
You made the claim about Sebeos, it's up to you to support it, not me. BTW, I did a Google search on Sebeos, and nothing came up, unlike Tacitus.
Unlike you, I will provide a valid response. On the bookshelf to my immediate left I have well thumbed copies of: Basic Christianity, The Cross of Christ and The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. I don't limit my reading to sources that agree with my currrent understanding of a subject and I enjoy identifying and challenging my own personal biases.
Neither do I, or I wouldn't be participating in this forum.
I didn't answer your question simply because it is a digression
It isn't a digression, and I'll ask it again: If you say Jesus perform miracles, would you become a Christian?
from the discussion regarding the academic analyses of the Testimonium Flavianum that you are basing your assertions on. So, to restate the request you have avoided - please cite those academic analyses.
I will quote John P. Meier, "The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible", Bible Review, June 1991:

"Read the Testimonium without the italicized passages [the probable later insertions] and you will see that the flow of thought is clear. Josephus calls Jesus by the generic title "wise man" (sophos an'r, perhaps the Hebrew khakham). Josephus then proceeds to "unpack" that generic designation (wise man) with two of its main components in the Greco-Roman world: miracle working and effective teaching. This double display of "wisdom" wins Jesus a large following among both Jews and gentiles, and presumably - though no explicit reason is given - it is this huge success that moves the leading men to accuse Jesus before Pilate. Despite Jesus' shameful death on the cross, his earlier adherents do not give up their loyalty to him, and so (note that the transition is much better without the reference to the resurrection in the deleted passage) the tribe of Christians has not yet died out."
Digression again!
What you call a 'digression' I call trying to get a straight answer out of you.
The discussion was focussing on why Mohammed would quote the miracles of Jesus as they were 'revealed' in the Qu'ran. I hadn't denied that fact - but you're now attempting to make the mention of Jesus miracles in the Qu'ran some sort of point scoring exercise.

FWIW - do you know that the Qu'ran attributes miracles to Jesus that - for some reason - didn't make it into the bible?
The NT claims there were many acts of Jesus not recorded in the Bible.
Indeed! It would appear though, that I am open to considering the conclusions of those with whom I don't agree and, if they convince me that they are correct, I am also intellectually mature enough to change my position.


So people who don't come to your conclusions are just not 'intellectually mature'? :-k
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #40

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote:

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A
But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.
I can accept there can be multiple connotations. However, if we use the term "free speech" in the context of "rights" then the implication is that it is a first amendment issue. If we use the word "attack" then the implication is that someone is trying to prevent a person from engaging in protected speech.


Again, neither of these is happening in this instance. Thus, the use of this term seems to me to be inappropriate, and appears to be an effort at making a victim where none really exists.



Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.
Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Since this is off-topic, I will not get into the details here. You may recall we went over this in another thread. The issue is not my disagreement with Ms. Gellar's objection to the location. Some of the issues were:

1) Portraying in her advertising that the structure would be literally at Ground Zero. That is not accurate.
The building proposed for the mosque site was damaged on 9/11, making it in many people's minds part of Ground Zero, even though it might not fit the technical use of the term.

The advertisement represented the mosque as directly on ground zero, not several blocks away. Whether or nto you consider buildings several blocks away to be part of GZ is not the only issue. Even if you have that opinion, the representation was still dishonest.

And the term Ground Zero is usually understood to be the area of total destruction. I doubt you would find any references using that term that were meant to apply to structures off the actual WTC site until after the Park 51 plans were under discussion. Thus, the "stretching" if you will of the term is almost surely motivated by Gellar and others against the project.

2) Showing a portrayal of a domed mosque structure, ala the one in Jerusalem, again right at Ground Zero. Again, not accurate.
I doubt she was proposing that is what the mosque would look like, it was probably just a symbol. I don't think the mosque would have been visible from the street.

Labeling it a "symbol" does not reduce the dishonesty. The "symbol" seemed clearly designed to inflame emotions against the project, and did so through dishonest representation of the project. Inventing her own "symbolic" representation and suggesting it as the reality is dishonest.



East of Eden wrote:
3) Inaccurate and nigh on slanderous comments about the Imam.
4) Inaccurate, inflammatory, and insulting suggestions that this was intended to be a "victory mosque," a sort of celebration of the success of 9-11.
Those are matters of opinion, I would tend to agree with hers.

But not all opinions are equally valid. Certainly she is welcome to her opinion. That does not negate that her opinions are based on, and that she justifices them, through dishonest and inaccurate statements.

Is there ANY evidence that anyone involved with the project had intentions of this being a "victory Mosque?"


No, niether Gellar nor anyone else was ever able to provide any evidence that this was the case. The "opinion" was based entirely on speculation and distortion. In fact, all evidence indicates the purpose was almost exactly the opposite of the representation offered by Gellar and others.



The only evidence provided to show that the Imam was radical was also clearly based on distortion or denial of facts, plain and simple. One interview taken out of context, and one statement by the Imam on 9/11 which was absolutely factually true and very similar to statements made by a number of mainstream U.S. politicians.



Certainly anyone is free to have opinions based on distortions and speculation, but those opinons do not deserve to be considered as credible or valid as opinions that are based on reality.




Again, both ads under discussion in this thread were inflammatory and, in my view, unfair. I don't know the record of the group producing the anti-Catholic ad. I do know the record of Gellar, and it is not a good one with respect to truthfulness or fairness. Someone with Gellar's record should not expect publications to be eager to provide her a platform for her propaganda.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Post Reply