Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Spensed]

Fixed that. And of course there's "objectively including and excluding historical texts" -- by a set standard. If that can't be objective, NOTHING is objective.

You're beginning to get the message. What is included and excluded is a decision made by someone exercising their judgment. That is far from an objective scientific process.

"The idea that the eyewitness accounts were accurately preserved by oral transmission would be laughed out of court." Totally false -- once the system and the values at the time were explained by experts, it would be taken as evidence.

Simply not true. Hearsay evidence is not accepted in court, which some exceptions that don't apply here, because it's notoriously unreliable.

Why are you allowing Scientology centuries to come up with eyewitnesses (to nothing, because there's nothing to be an eyewitness to). BTW, non-written transmission today would vary wildly in accuracy depending on who was doing them. Give the material to the right group of Buddhist monks and it could be preserved a millennium word-for-word.

Hubbard's life and example are venerated and evidenced with more immediacy than Jesus' was. You're in your own fantasy world if you think that word of mouth material can be transmitted accurately for a millennium with no written source. Even now, among Christians, there is no consensus about the meanings of the texts so precisely preserved.

Again you misrepresent the facts. "written decades after the events" in that culture meant "written down from the original passed down with required accuracy for a couple of decades". And in terms of examining historical texts to evaluate testimony, yes, it is reliable, to historical scholars, regardless of where it came from.

Like most hearsay evidence, the texts are not necessarily accurate as to the truth at the start of the oral source.

That people can't all agree doesn't have the least thing to do the reliability of eye-witness evidence in a totally different situation.

Gobbledygook.

Yes, the experts agree unanimously. And none got it wrong -- they knew, at least as far as we know of the translation skills, and did it wrong anyway. With the KJV that wouldn't be surprising; there are other choices for translation that are politically motivated.

So you're laughing at something you made up, not what I wrote.

You wrote, "The experts agree unanimously....Why some got it wrong is an interesting question..." That's what I'm laughing at. If the experts agree unanimously, how can some get it wrong?

This sounds like you have no idea of scholarship. There are rules for evaluating reliability, and the Gospels rate highly. And you continue misrepresenting the situation; the content of the Gospels was not "old"; in reliability terms it rates a fresh, because of how such things were passed down. And that passing down didn't start after the Resurrection; Jesus preached in a tradition of using a certain set of lessons, whether parables or stories or what, designed to be memorable, and expected to be passed on word for word -- so by the time He was no longer around, most of the content of the Gospels had already been memorized by hundreds of people -- that's why there's so much in common. There's reason to believe that the rest is from lessons specifically for Jerusalem, others specifically for the north (Galilee), so the writers had distinct sets of memorized eye-witness accounts to work with while themselves being eyewitnesses.

You're relying on third hand hearsay evidence and that defies reason. As I keep saying, you don't know that the original eyewitness didn't lie or were mistaken individually or collectively? Or that the original facts or truth survived the process you describe. The messengers had a vested interest in spinning the message as you are doing. Legends, myths, fables and so on all change during any periods of non-written transmission. However, if you insist on arguing that a myth can survive that process largely in tact, it doesn't mean that the myth, or the "facts" thereof, are true.

 

[Spensed]

I'm not ignoring anything -- that's baseless, in fact less than baseless because it twists what I've said.

Faith is a gift of God. Faith requires evidence. These are both statements from the New Testament and the Old. I didn't make either of those up, and I didn't hunt form evidence that suited me as I had no idea what would "suit me" until I had all the evidence, ad then what suited me was to follow standard scholarship.

And there is no disagreement on faith requiring evidence. That's taught at Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Catholic seminaries (the latter who say that at the same time faith is caused by evidence and that faith is the gift of God). Yes, there will be fringe examples (especially in church who think an educated preacher isn't a "Spirit" preacher) where some will divide faith from evidence, but no serious New Testament scholar.

The issue simply isn't as settled as you would like to assert. There is debate about the meaning of faith and the meaning of evidence. Jesus' words are very clear and would be unnecessary and meaningless in their context, if they were to have the spin you're trying to give them. I'm not suggesting the any "evidence" should be ignored. It just simply need not be a pre-requisite to faith. Temporal evidence can prove false. A child can have faith without knowing what evidence means.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're beginning to get the message. What is included and excluded is a decision made by someone exercising their judgment. That is far from an objective scientific process.

Science is not the only way to know something. Don't go into scientism here.

Simply not true. Hearsay evidence is not accepted in court, which some exceptions that don't apply here, because it's notoriously unreliable.

Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. Stop misrepresenting the evidence.

Hubbard's life and example are venerated and evidenced with more immediacy than Jesus' was. You're in your own fantasy world if you think that word of mouth material can be transmitted accurately for a millennium with no written source. Even now, among Christians, there is no consensus about the meanings of the texts so precisely preserved.

Stop making crap up -- no one is talking about "a millennium". But we know for certain that the oral transmission of the Old Testament helped keep the written transmission accurate, and vice versa.

Like most hearsay evidence, the texts are not necessarily accurate as to the truth at the start of the oral source.

There's no hearsay involved. Stop misrepresenting the matter.

Gobbledygook.

Basic logic. How people view subject A has no relevance to an eyewitness testimony on subject B. You're just handwaving.

You wrote, "The experts agree unanimously....Why some got it wrong is an interesting question..." That's what I'm laughing at. If the experts agree unanimously, how can some get it wrong?

You're laughing at your own imagination -- the two statements are in agreement, or the second would have no meaning; the question wouldn't be interesting if it weren't for the fact that they agreed. I've never seen anything suggesting that the King James translators weren't aware of this very simple word meaning in the Hebrew -- and that's what makes it interesting that they did it wrong: they knew better, and went against their knowledge.

You're relying on third hand hearsay evidence and that defies reason. As I keep saying, you don't know that the original eyewitness didn't lie or were mistaken individually or collectively? Or that the original facts or truth survived the process you describe. The messengers had a vested interest in spinning the message as you are doing. Legends, myths, fables and so on all change during any periods of non-written transmission. However, if you insist on arguing that a myth can survive that process largely in tact, it doesn't mean that the myth, or the "facts" thereof, are true.

There's no hearsay involved. The testimony of eyewitnesses, memorized by others, does not become hearsay when they write it down.

You can dismiss scholarship by pretending to know my motives better than I do, but it just reveals the emptiness of your position. My only interest is in the truth, and by standard historical methods of scholarship the Gospels are solid eyewitness testimony. If that weren't true, I wouldn't have been terribly interested in them.

 

[Kulindahr]

The issue simply isn't as settled as you would like to assert. There is debate about the meaning of faith and the meaning of evidence. Jesus' words are very clear and would be unnecessary and meaningless in their context, if they were to have the spin you're trying to give them. I'm not suggesting the any "evidence" should be ignored. It just simply need not be a pre-requisite to faith. Temporal evidence can prove false. A child can have faith without knowing what evidence means.

But you're flat-out ignoring the text -- so don't pretend to be following evidence. The text itself tells us that all that Jesus did for Thomas was provide the same evidence He had given the others. In the context, the evidence is important to faith. So Jesus' statement about not seeing doesn't mean no evidence, it only means "without this particular evidence".

As for children, their faith depends on evidence -- I learned that in education courses looking at child development. Why does a child scream if grabbed by a stranger but not if grabbed in the same way by its father? Because it has evidence that the father means it well, and no such evidence about the stranger. Why does a child become afraid of jumping into a pool after nearly drowning? Because it has evidence that jumping into a pool can have bad results. Even more basically, how does a child learn to speak a language? By assembling the evidence of what different sounds mean! "Knowing what evidence means" is irrelevant; relying on evidence is a basic way that the human mind functions -- so basic, indeed, that it would be startling indeed if God didn't work with that pattern.

 

[Spensed]

There's no hearsay involved. The testimony of eyewitnesses, memorized by others, does not become hearsay when they write it down.

Just to take this one example. The testimony of eyewitnesses presented by others as proof of the truth of what was witnessed is the definition of hearsay. Like that, many of your faith-motivated assertions are wrong or not universally accepted. Little wonder that you can't take a joke about them.

 

[Spensed]

But you're flat-out ignoring the text -- so don't pretend to be following evidence. The text itself tells us that all that Jesus did for Thomas was provide the same evidence He had given the others. In the context, the evidence is important to faith. So Jesus' statement about not seeing doesn't mean no evidence, it only means "without this particular evidence".

You're making this up as you go along. The whole point of the story is that the other disciples believed without checking out Jesus' wounds.

As for children, their faith depends on evidence -- I learned that in education courses looking at child development. Why does a child scream if grabbed by a stranger but not if grabbed in the same way by its father? Because it has evidence that the father means it well, and no such evidence about the stranger. Why does a child become afraid of jumping into a pool after nearly drowning? Because it has evidence that jumping into a pool can have bad results. Even more basically, how does a child learn to speak a language? By assembling the evidence of what different sounds mean! "Knowing what evidence means" is irrelevant; relying on evidence is a basic way that the human mind functions -- so basic, indeed, that it would be startling indeed if God didn't work with that pattern.

Startling that God might not work to human patterns? Who says he has to? I'm not disputing that children learn from evidence. But that's evidence based thinking. Children love even parents who treat them badly, i.e. despite the evidence. Their belief need not be evidenced based. That's faith.

You appear to be convinced that notions, like faith, are cut and dried they way you choose to see them. You might wrong, there isn't a consensus on some of these matters, and it's this very rigidity of conviction and attitude that anti-religious humor finds so amusing.

 

[dpnice]

Just popping in to give my whole-hearted support to Spensed.

 

[HoodedRat]

Spensed has my utmost admiration for his patience and his calm well-reasoned posts.

 

[Spensed]

^ Thanks guys. And also for your comments. I'm not really looking to knock any one's religious beliefs, just to argue for some skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just to take this one example. The testimony of eyewitnesses presented by others as proof of the truth of what was witnessed is the definition of hearsay. Like that, many of your faith-motivated assertions are wrong or not universally accepted. Little wonder that you can't take a joke about them.

Sorry, but in terms of scholarship for evaluating historical material, things that are memorized and passed on as memorized are treated the same as original documents. When that memorized material is identical to what an eyewitness wrote down, it is solid corroboration of that eyewitness material. This is why one must first establish whether a culture paid attention to passing on the account of something accurately.

BTW, I haven't made any faith-based assertions. You making that claim repeatedly despite any lack of evidence merely reveals your prejudice here.

And I have no problems with jokes about religion -- as long as they're actually about that religion, or at the least about how someone claims to be following that religion. My issue is with deliberate insult passed off as humor, or attacks based on what for any other topic would be considered straw ma arguments.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're making this up as you go along. The whole point of the story is that the other disciples believed without checking out Jesus' wounds.

I'm not making anything up -- I'm looking at the text. And the point of the story is that Jesus was willing to offer whatever evidence Thomas needed. If your assertion that evidence is irrelevant because faith is a gift, then Jesus wouldn't have made the offer to Thomas, he would have just given Thomas greater faith. But what really happened? Jesus proved that faith follows evidence by granting Thomas more faith through giving him more evidence.

Besides which, the other disciples had certainly seen the wounds on Jesus' wrists and feet; it would be impossible not to unless Jesus were deliberately hiding them. Seen from that fact, Jesus is saying to Thomas that He is willing to provide whatever evidence it takes to convince Thomas.

Startling that God might not work to human patterns? Who says he has to? I'm not disputing that children learn from evidence. But that's evidence based thinking. Children love even parents who treat them badly, i.e. despite the evidence. Their belief need not be evidenced based. That's faith.

You're mixing things and shifting the goalposts at the same time. Children can love their parents while not trusting them; in other words, love does not result in faith. Children who trusted parents who treat them badly would be foolish -- but love is often foolish.

You appear to be convinced that notions, like faith, are cut and dried they way you choose to see them. You might wrong, there isn't a consensus on some of these matters, and it's this very rigidity of conviction and attitude that anti-religious humor finds so amusing.

If that's what you think is happening, then all scholarship, including science, is just as deserving of laughter.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Thanks guys. And also for your comments. I'm not really looking to knock any one's religious beliefs, just to argue for some skepticism and critical thinking.

But you depart from critical thinking an almost every post you make -- your last post, where you conflate love and faith, is a great demonstration of that; so are your posts where you throw out standard methods of scholarship and substitute your subjective view.

I became a Christian due to critical thinking. And every time I'm ready to throw the whole thing out, it's critical thinking that brings me back.

 

[Spensed]

Sorry, but in terms of scholarship for evaluating historical material, things that are memorized and passed on as memorized are treated the same as original documents. When that memorized material is identical to what an eyewitness wrote down, it is solid corroboration of that eyewitness material. This is why one must first establish whether a culture paid attention to passing on the account of something accurately.

That makes no sense for the same reason that hearsay evidence isn't admitted in court, subject to some exceptions. A document can be verified and questioned in a number of respects as to physical media, its provenance, etc. that alleged verbal transmissions can't. But, even non-contemporaneous documents are suspect as to the truth of what they purport to document. I seem to remember that the risen Christ did not show himself generally in the way he did before he died. The witnesses to the risen Christ could have lied or been duped or whatever. Who would knows? If they passed on what they believed to be true, it wouldn't make it true. You ignore all of those concerns to get to your faith-based end point.

 

[Spensed]

I'm not making anything up -- I'm looking at the text. And the point of the story is that Jesus was willing to offer whatever evidence Thomas needed. If your assertion that evidence is irrelevant because faith is a gift, then Jesus wouldn't have made the offer to Thomas, he would have just given Thomas greater faith. But what really happened? Jesus proved that faith follows evidence by granting Thomas more faith through giving him more evidence.

Besides which, the other disciples had certainly seen the wounds on Jesus' wrists and feet; it would be impossible not to unless Jesus were deliberately hiding them. Seen from that fact, Jesus is saying to Thomas that He is willing to provide whatever evidence it takes to convince Thomas.

Then why bless those who believe without seeing? Jump through all the hoops you wants, the story has a clear meaning, supported by the Catholic Catechism, etc., etc.

You're mixing things and shifting the goalposts at the same time. Children can love their parents while not trusting them; in other words, love does not result in faith. Children who trusted parents who treat them badly would be foolish -- but love is often foolish.

The point is that children can have faith in God without needing or understanding any evidence as to God's existence, or not, as the case may be. Faith need not have an evidence requirement. That's my point.

If that's what you think is happening, then all scholarship, including science, is just as deserving of laughter.

Just some of your faith driven notions about it.

 

[Spensed]

I became a Christian due to critical thinking. And every time I'm ready to throw the whole thing out, it's critical thinking that brings me back.

Let's hope more of it shows up in your posts.

 

[Kulindahr]

That makes no sense for the same reason that hearsay evidence isn't admitted in court, subject to some exceptions. A document can be verified and questioned in a number of respects as to physical media, its provenance, etc. that alleged verbal transmissions can't. But, even non-contemporaneous documents are suspect as to the truth of what they purport to document. I seem to remember that the risen Christ did not show himself generally in the way he did before he died. The witnesses to the risen Christ could have lied or been duped or whatever. Who would knows? If they passed on what they believed to be true, it wouldn't make it true. You ignore all of those concerns to get to your faith-based end point.

Calling it hearsay rejects the fact that oral-transmission societies have kept the accounts identical word-for-word for generations. It ignores the cultural difference, in fact throws it out and imposes one cultural view on another.

Lied? Not credible. Duped? Also not credible. In order to conclude either of those to be the case it's necessary to ignore the culture of the people under discussion.


And you continue to present a false statement. The only cause can be an irrational prejudice giving an a priori assumption that has the relationship totally backwards.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then why bless those who believe without seeing? Jump through all the hoops you wants, the story has a clear meaning, supported by the Catholic Catechism, etc., etc.

Because they believe without that specific evidence. Make up hoops if you like them, but I'm just addressing the text.

The point is that children can have faith in God without needing or understanding any evidence as to God's existence, or not, as the case may be. Faith need not have an evidence requirement. That's my point.

But your claim is empty: children have evidence.

And sure "faith need not have an evidence requirement" -- but we're talking about what the Bible means by faith, and according to both prophets and apostles, faith rests on evidence.

Just some of your faith driven notions about it.

I exclude faith-driven notions. So stop the lying.

 

[medic1]

Wow, Kuli. Spensed is kicking you from pillar to post, and back again. Please stop before you really do become a laughing stock for your intractable position.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow, Kuli. Spensed is kicking you from pillar to post, and back again. Please stop before you really do become a laughing stock for your intractable position.

I'm following standard scholarship. He is operating on the basis of an a priori prejudice.

Operating on the standard basis of evaluating ancient sources, the Gospels stand up more strongly than anything until almost the printing press. The ONLY reason that is denied is because of pre-judging due to their being religious material. I approached them as I would any other ancient document, and the result is that on the basis of accepted rules of scholarship it has to be concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. The only possible reason to reject that is because of some prejudice.

I follow where the evidence leads, and on the basis of both historical scholarship and accepted rules of evidence, the conclusion that what the Apostles preached -- things we know even without looking to the Gospels -- is true. As I said, I often want to reject that, but applying critical thinking excludes that option -- the evidence is too strong.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

this would be funny if it wasn't true

Wait -- why is he female?