Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Kulindahr]

Everyone loves the can do prophet, Elisha, when he was mocked by a group of children for his bald head, he cursed them all in the name of the Lord, and there appeared two she-bears who promptly tore apart those kids. Afterwhich he went on his merry way.

2500+ years on, our dial-a-bear service for pesky kid eradication needs fixing.

That account is difficult in several ways, enough so that I don't really have an opinion about it. Even in the fuller context, and in the culture of the day, there are some issues.

But whatever the reality of that event, the foibles of a prophet do not trump the message. If he'd made a habit of siccing bears on people, there would be a problem, sure, but as it stands pointing to it is just a distraction tactic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Twisting oneself into a pretzel to sustain one's belief seems more to mock one's creator, if there is one. There is no reason for the antiquated aspects of the Bible and its morality other than it's an old text reflecting the time, in which it was written. It may or may not have a metaphysical dimension beyond that. The fact that some folk can't live with that uncertainty explains why they don't have a sense of humor about comedy which mocks their asserted theology.

>sigh< So you're back to lying -- your last line is demonstrably false.

And there's no "twisting" involved, just analysis of an ancient document the same as any other ancient document

 

[Kulindahr]

It was a general statement. Do you always take things you read on the internet as a personal attack?

This reminds me of the religious freaks who always think everything is against god and / or them.

Um, what? I didn't react to it personally at all.

 

[Spensed]

And there's no "twisting" involved, just analysis of an ancient document the same as any other ancient document

Except with the exclusion of any uncertainty, questioning or the usual rules of evidence, etc.

You clearly like your schoolmarm outfit. However, as, I think you, know, I don't think that all your twisting and apologias are necessary with respect to an ancient text that is a product of its time and has the imperfections in thinking and morality that one would expect. Same goes for the humor you find so full of lies and disrespect, while others just find it funny or insightful.

 

[Kulindahr]

Except with the exclusion of any uncertainty, questioning or the usual rules of evidence, etc.

You clearly like your schoolmarm outfit. However, as, I think you, know, I don't think that all your twisting and apologias are necessary with respect to an ancient text that is a product of its time and has the imperfections in thinking and morality that one would expect. Same goes for the humor you find so full of lies and disrespect, while others just find it funny or insightful.

LOL

You object every time I apply the rules of evidence.

 

[Spensed]

^ Hearsay, second hand eyewitness testimony, selectively included texts, etc. I don't think you'd know a rule of evidence, if you eye witnessed it. Teehee.

 

[Jacquemar]

^ Hearsay, second hand eyewitness testimony, selectively included texts, etc. I don't think you'd know a rule of evidence, if you eye witnessed it. Teehee.

I don't debate... at all. But I'm curious to know what are "rules of evidence" and "rules of scholarship"? Are they some sort of guidelines for how to present evidence in a debate and then interpret it or/and argue it correctly?? Any links I can look at?

 

[Spensed]

^I think we're talking about two things.

There are generally accepted rules of evidence governing what can be presented to a court as accurate. These include not allowing hearsay evidence (reporting what someone else has said) because it can't be cross-examined or challenged. There are various exceptions to this.

Then there are the rules of evidence as to what is generally accepted in historical research. Similar concepts apply. If the only historical evidence of something is dated much later than the event, than it is less likely to be accurate than something produced at the time of the event. A genuine document contemporary to an event is going to be better evidence than something passed on by word of mouth and then included or left out by people with their own agenda.

The problem with the Biblical stuff is that, despite what one would think from some posts here, there's much that's open to debate simply because the evidence is not available or is compromised. The reports of the resurrection might have been spun by Christ's followers and that false report echoed down through the years.

You can Google the rules of evidence to see the kinds of issues and uncertainties involved. True believers tend to ignore the rules of evidence or fit them to their purpose. Here, you would think the story of Christ was Gospel.

 

[Jacquemar]

^I think we're talking about two things.

There are generally accepted rules of evidence governing what can be presented to a court as accurate. These include not allowing hearsay evidence (reporting what someone else has said) because it can't be cross-examined or challenged. There are various exceptions to this.

Then there are the rules of evidence as to what is generally accepted in historical research. Similar concepts apply. If the only historical evidence of something is dated much later than the event, than it is less likely to be accurate than something produced at the time of the event. A genuine document contemporary to an event is going to be better evidence than something passed on by word of mouth and then included or left out by people with their own agenda.

The problem with the Biblical stuff is that, despite what one would think from some posts here, there's much that's open to debate simply because the evidence is not available or is compromised. The reports of the resurrection might have been spun by Christ's followers and that false report echoed down through the years.

You can Google the rules of evidence to see the kinds of issues and uncertainties involved. True believers tend to ignore the rules of evidence or fit them to their purpose. Here, you would think the story of Christ was Gospel.

Okay. For anyone who's interested, I found this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

I found nothing on "rules of scholarship" except guidelines for applying for scholarships from various universities. Did I not look hard enough?

I feel the story of Jesus is a myth: a myth that combined the most popular elements and themes that already existed in popular Mediterranean mythology. There may have been, and I admit it's likely, an historical Jesus (though it wouldn't be necessary), around which this myth was constructed.

Zeus soter!

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't debate... at all. But I'm curious to know what are "rules of evidence" and "rules of scholarship"? Are they some sort of guidelines for how to present evidence in a debate and then interpret it or/and argue it correctly?? Any links I can look at?

There are standards by which evidence is judged in terms of reliability and credibility. I've mentioned one several times, namely that in some oral cultures the transmission of material is considered to be as dependable as if it had been done by text. That's parallel to how transmission of texts is measured between cultures; in some altering texts was considered fair; in others it wasn't, such as with copying the Old Testament texts, where one error was enough to throw out the page and start over.

This began with a reference to rules of evidence in a courtroom, because I referenced a highly-regarded investigator who set out to prove the Gospels were nonsense and concluded the contrary, i.e.e that by modern rules of evidence for the courtroom Jesus could be "convicted" of having risen from the dead. There's a lot in common between the two sets.

In terms of rules of scholarship, one is that terms have meanings; an example is making the claim that documents were "selectively chosen", which indicates bias, a claim often made about the New Testament documents with the idea that they were chosen by a hierarchy with an agenda of bending the church to a certain view, but by the historical evidence that fails because the eastern church, with no secular authority or similar ability to police its members, actually chose fewer texts than did the western church. If one insists on calling the New Testament documents "selectively chosen", one has then stretched the term to the point of meaninglessness, because it would apply to any collection of materials at all, and so is a pointless designation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay. For anyone who's interested, I found this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

I found nothing on "rules of scholarship" except guidelines for applying for scholarships from various universities. Did I not look hard enough?

I feel the story of Jesus is a myth: a myth that combined the most popular elements and themes that already existed in popular Mediterranean mythology. There may have been, and I admit it's likely, an historical Jesus (though it wouldn't be necessary), around which this myth was constructed.

Zeus soter!

To address your paragraph here, that claim fails because it has to be predicated of the least likely people in the Roman Empire to invent such a concoction; the general Jewish reaction to Christianity's claims shows that. This illustrates the rule that a claim has to fit the source.

 

[zoltanspawn]

This began with a reference to rules of evidence in a courtroom, because I referenced a highly-regarded investigator who set out to prove the Gospels were nonsense and concluded the contrary, i.e.e that by modern rules of evidence for the courtroom Jesus could be "convicted" of having risen from the dead. There's a lot in common between the two sets.

Ah yes, the highly regarded investigator, who along with Mike Huckabee, has a cameo in this highly-regarded movie :

 

[Jacquemar]

To address your paragraph here, that claim fails because it has to be predicated of the least likely people in the Roman Empire to invent such a concoction; the general Jewish reaction to Christianity's claims shows that. This illustrates the rule that a claim has to fit the source.

Yeah. Sorry... I don't agree. At least the story narrated in the gospels is definitely a myth.

 

[Spensed]

There are standards by which evidence is judged in terms of reliability and credibility. I've mentioned one several times, namely that in some oral cultures the transmission of material is considered to be as dependable as if it had been done by text. That's parallel to how transmission of texts is measured between cultures; in some altering texts was considered fair; in others it wasn't, such as with copying the Old Testament texts, where one error was enough to throw out the page and start over.

This began with a reference to rules of evidence in a courtroom, because I referenced a highly-regarded investigator who set out to prove the Gospels were nonsense and concluded the contrary, i.e.e that by modern rules of evidence for the courtroom Jesus could be "convicted" of having risen from the dead. There's a lot in common between the two sets.

In terms of rules of scholarship, one is that terms have meanings; an example is making the claim that documents were "selectively chosen", which indicates bias, a claim often made about the New Testament documents with the idea that they were chosen by a hierarchy with an agenda of bending the church to a certain view, but by the historical evidence that fails because the eastern church, with no secular authority or similar ability to police its members, actually chose fewer texts than did the western church. If one insists on calling the New Testament documents "selectively chosen", one has then stretched the term to the point of meaninglessness, because it would apply to any collection of materials at all, and so is a pointless designation.

Not surprisingly, you confuse process and content. People may well redo a page so it doesn't contain a writing error, but they are reflecting content that someone has approved. You have conceded that some texts were excluded from the canon. Please use some common sense. Even today oral transmission of news and evidence, with nothing else, is notoriously subject to spin and serving agendas.

Plus, as I keep on saying, the source is unverified. If the resurrection is a Ron Hubbard type story spun by true believers, then its falsehood isn't cured even if the transmission isn't tainted. I don't know the truth of it and neither does anyone else. Nor do I think the evidence is necessary to have faith, or not have faith, in the essential truth of the story.

Blustering certainly about the unknown is the source of some of the humor you find so disrespectful. So, I guess, you're at least now learning something. Teehee.

 

[Spensed]

To address your paragraph here, that claim fails because it has to be predicated of the least likely people in the Roman Empire to invent such a concoction; the general Jewish reaction to Christianity's claims shows that. This illustrates the rule that a claim has to fit the source.

The "concoction" didn't need to be invented. The idea of a prophet-God-son was imbued in the traditions and history of the time. Who knows whether Christ was more than man or was a more benign Trump-like charismatic, who seized his opportunity in factions of the popular imagination? What is fact and what is myth is the subject of repeated debate.

 

[Spensed]

Ah yes, the highly regarded investigator, who along with Mike Huckabee, has a cameo in this highly-regarded movie :

Jesse Metcalfe. Say it ain't so.

 

[aaggii]

Um, what? I didn't react to it personally at all.

Typical religious behaviour: does one thing, says he didn´t... Be careful, god is watching!

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah yes, the highly regarded investigator, who along with Mike Huckabee, has a cameo in this highly-regarded movie :

I forget what the fallacy is called, but your reference to someone's movie has no bearing on whether the man is a highly-regarded expert.

 

[Kulindahr]

The "concoction" didn't need to be invented. The idea of a prophet-God-son was imbued in the traditions and history of the time. Who knows whether Christ was more than man or was a more benign Trump-like charismatic, who seized his opportunity in factions of the popular imagination? What is fact and what is myth is the subject of repeated debate.

Fallacious argument -- it's exactly like saying that police officers fight house fires because firemen do. The "idea of a prophet-God-son" was not current, and never had been, in Judaism.

You regularly stuff modern dictionary meanings in ancient Greek terms; now you're stuffing Roman culture into Judaism. Both are fatal errors in scholarship.

 

[Kulindahr]

Typical religious behaviour: does one thing, says he didn´t... Be careful, god is watching!

So your response is "I said you did, so you did!" That's kindergarten logic.

I made analytical statements about your post. I said nothing about my feelings, and I didn't respond as though I'd been attacked. Why would I respond in a way that would be a lie? I didn't see any attack on me. Indeed if I had seen one, the proper response would have been to report the post to the mods, because personal attacks aren't allowed.