Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Shop now Learn More Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Dawkins and Williams


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 626-650 of 697 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 12 May 2012 20:10:01 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 May 2012 20:11:01 BDT
AJ Murray says:
T. Woodman,

-"You appear to think the NT is 'very much later' than the events it describes."

I was talking about the Gospels, as you should already be aware, and they *do* appear much later. These are not contemporary stories but instead are written down some 30-70 years after the events they purport to depict.

-"Yet the gap is much shorter than you think..."

I doubt you have any evidence to that effect.

-"...and Paul, for example, describes meeting James, the brother of Jesus, whose execution is described independently by Josephus."

Isn't it funny how the Gospels never mention his family beyond the two contradictory birth narratives? That would be evidence in favour of these being exaggerated legends.

-"As in post above to Drew I have described in some detail the techniques scholars can use to work out a substratum of historical facts about Jesus from the NT. No academic historian of any faith or none now doubts that the basics of the story and mission of Jesus can be known to be true..."

What are these basics then? As far as i am aware what we have is a reasonable conclusion that there was an apocalyptic preacher who fomented discontent and was regarded as heretical, in all likelyhood he may have garnered a modest following, much as many charismatic cult leaders do today, and in the end he was executed as a criminal, probably because he was stirring up trouble. This isn't the divine son of a god worshipped by Christians, but much reduced and pathetic figure. It not as if this guy can even be pointed to as a great philosopher.

-"as in the Michael Grant book that he proclaimed the kingdom of God. More work has subsequently been done to establish for example that he had a special ministry to those outside the boundaries of conventional Judaism-- the sinners, prostitutes etc, and this is so counter-cultural to the time that it is unlikely to have been invented by a group of writers apparently independent of each in location and date."

Rubbish, zealots for their religion invent stuff all the bloody time, note how Muhammed is suposed to have performed a variety of miraculous deeds and Joseph Smith likewise. We see examples of this on this site *constantly*, with those who think they have access to The Truth™ giving us all manner of inventions against evolution, radiometric dating, palaeontology, physics and chemistry!

The writers of the Gospels and Paul himself are not objective, neutral commentators but are evangelical zealots convinced of their own truths and their writings reflect that.

-"Professor Graham Stanton (yes, heavens forbid a Christian, so everything he says must be a lie)"

Give it a rest.

-"...presents a very careful and understated view of what can be seen as historically probable (which is all we can say about anything in ancient history) but that means what academic historians accept."

Do you understand how 'historically probable' differs from 'observed facts'?

-"It does include 'miracles' in the sense of apparently paranormal healings, but not the so called nature miracles like the water and wine as discussed with Drew (sorry, I forget if it is on this website)."

We see such attributions of miracle healings around charismatic cult leaders today, what reason do you have for Jesus being an exception to this chicanery?

-"As Stanton points out, Jesus' impact on people is an historical phenomenon."

So what? Joseph Smith had an impact, so did Muhammed, David Koresh made an mpact too. All you are basically saying is that ideas and stories can influence people. It has no bearing on whether those ideas have any form of veracity though.

-"It is you not me that is using the circular argument when you say his 'impact on believers' because they did not start as believers and came to believe very counter-cultural things for Judaism and paganism."

I think that before accusing others of logical fallacies you should read up on what they are and how they are applied as criticism, so far you appear to use these quite incorrectly.

-"(On the Mormons I shall not repeat myself again, but have discussed with Drew above)"

Yeah, badly. Your constant handwaving isn't doing you any favours. You should focus on the fact that the Mormon evidence is of the same kind that you are using to back up your Jesus, but is better in that they are contemporary and don't rely on the anonymous witnesses that are referred to in the NT accounts.

In short; you are being inconsistent.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 05:27:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 May 2012 06:04:16 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 06:03:01 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 06:14:39 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TOM M ;"I don't have a doubt in the world but that it was a wondrous sign from heaven as the child prophecised to the second. "- We are talking about the sun, right, out star that is visible over roughly half the planet at any one time? But only 70,000 people were witnessing something that we could reasonably expect everyone who was in day light at the time to notice? I have no doubt that this is utter gibberish.

You would need to have the mental powers of a gnat not to spot this is complete crap.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 06:17:04 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Tom -Like I have advised Diane( your partner in stupidity), writing LOL or Hahahahaha at the end of the post does not make it humourous. It does however make it look like you have mental issues- entirely in keeping with the rest of your output.

Posted on 13 May 2012 06:24:13 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 07:59:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 May 2012 10:02:28 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"I think you are failing to get the point Drew."
Not really, if human testimony is something that establishes miraculous events then we find that in both the Gospels and Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon was more careful in recording the testimony of those witnesses. Some aren't fans of Mormonism but it's interesting to see them undermine human testimony and the reasons they may have given for accepting the Gospels, that was the point I've been making by raising this. The other observation I didn't expect to see was that many are unaware of Mormon apologetics, they know of Joseph Smith and the circumstances of the golden plates etc. but not the other stuff Mormon's believe and use to justiify their faith, not understanding a belief system is usually put to atheists but here Christian's show a demonstrable lack of informed knowledge of Mormonism and by the standards often put forward by themselves render their non-belief in the Latter Day Saints untenable/irrelevant.

"Joseph Smith dictated the text that others swore ascended to heaven."
Yes, that is the claim.

"But neither you or I believe that heaven is up there, so how can it possibly be true."
That's irrelevant, we have to assess the claim on it's own terms not by what you and I believe as our individual or combined belief has absolutely no impact on what is true. Neither should we treat it any less seriously than Christian claims of revelation and heaven because you believe the latter. It's not how things work.

"I note that you accept Mormon testimony but not Christian."
No I don't. I've said all along that I don't think personal testimony is sufficient to establish the miraclous so for me there is no pressure to accept either, it's only for those who would say that they believe incredible things on the basis of human testimony that may have questions to answer. All I have done is observe that *if* human testimony was to be a standard I accepted things on then the Mormon testimony with the witnesses signing their name rather than being spoken for is more solid from an objective stand point.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 08:05:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 May 2012 10:08:50 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"You are engaging in an argumentative swerve again, Drew."
Again I don't think I am. You can't raise the issue of Holy Spirits and then say you're not really arguing for much by introducing Holy spirits so the subject doesn't have to be pushed too far.

"I was not citing the Holy Spirit to provide credence for any other claim but to demolish your previous point that reader-response to the bible means that the text itself is not inspired."
Citing the Holy spirit as the mechanism that guides people's interpretation of Christianity and the inspiration of the Bible is a claim that is trying to add credence to *everything*! You seem to imagine that the further claim of ghosts helping you decide on what is true and erroneous is a solution that should prompt no further questions but I disagree, there is every question we started with and a whole lot more about this spirit if you're not used to accepting claims of spirits casually.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 08:14:01 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Personifcation is a well established literary device, and built into all human language."
Sure but you can take things too far and abuse literary devices, I think personifying messages sits over that line.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 May 2012 22:24:32 BDT
Spin says:
Harry: As if I care....deletions reflect more on those deleting than on those deleted..=)

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 09:34:17 BDT
H W says:
it would reflect more on those deleting... but we don't know specifically who is doing the deleting.

Some forum police member doesn't like a few of us.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 14:24:43 BDT
It consists of medical scientists, CA, so we are back to the old claim so frequent on this site only atheists can check anything to do with religions.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 14:25:50 BDT
You don't. Pick up a literary text and then keep going until you find metaphors, symbols and personiications.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 14:39:02 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- it consists of medical scientists who *believe*. Flawed.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 15:04:18 BDT
30 years after events in a largely non-literary society does not appear to me to be 'much after' them.
On 'brother' of Jesus: here you are simply incorrect. The NT in several places refers to 'the brothers of Jesus', and James is so-called. Use a concordance or google.
People do not usually invent totally counter-cultural ideas about a leader they wish others to follow, and I was not referring to miraculous events.
'Impact' depends on what kind of impact. As Stanton says, 'what is the fire that produces this smoke'.
Where did the get the idea that the witnesses in the NT were anomymous? Again, this is simply not the case.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 15:08:12 BDT
The existence of human testimony to anything is not really the point Drew is it? Your answer to the human testimony of the gospels is that there is also human testimony to the mormon faith. You might as well have said there is human testimony in court, and some of that is a lie or a mistake. But I am concerned with the character of the witnesses, the fact that they died for their supposedly made up claims, and the nature of those claims.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 15:09:50 BDT
Not at all-- you don't believe the text is inspired either, but your argument was that saying the reader had to be inspired too takes authority from the text and I was explaining why that isn't so.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 15:10:37 BDT
Well, you are entitled to criticise the literary techniques of the bible. The fact remains that that is what they did.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 15:13:22 BDT
Not necessarily true, CA. I have no idea of the faith background of these doctors, but if you are going to say that Catholic doctors can't give medical evidence or Christian doctors.... You asked for medical evidence and there is quite a lot. So your next argument is that is all fraudulent. See how you are building a very convenient set of protections for yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2012 15:24:52 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- if there was any genuine evidence it would be shouted from the roof tops, not least by the patients own doctors when the missing leg grew back. That lourdes has to result to it's own medical panel speaks volumes- if the same thing was presented by Hindus of Mormons or Muslims you would agree. Your catholic bias is sadly all to easy to see.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 13:35:06 BDT
It has been shouted from the roof tops at the time. Note eg the presence of the healed man at Newman's beatification, where he spoke. It was on BBC and other TV.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 13:39:22 BDT
Jim Guest says:
'"False Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive."' Mk 13:22 NIV

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 14:15:36 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 14:19:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 May 2012 14:21:54 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2012 14:20:28 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Remain or Leave? 484 2 minutes ago
Christopher Hicthens 4023 20 minutes ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1152 1 hour ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 249 3 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 1860 3 hours ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 30 6 hours ago
Where did science orignally come from ? 532 11 hours ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1024 12 hours ago
What will happen first. The London BBC stop moaning that it's not fair, our side lost, wegot less votes but we supported remain and want the result changing. Or Jesus revisits the earth. 24 20 hours ago
Time to ignore the religion forums trolls.? 158 20 hours ago
The Bible is not the "Word of God" 1541 22 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  697
Initial post:  29 Feb 2012
Latest post:  14 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions