The fact there there was a man who claimed to be God and then his followers claimed that he was resurrected from the dead I would think would compel the Jewish leaders to compose a document or a case to show how such claims were untrue. Not necessarily, but the flaw here is the inference that if the Jewish leaders didn't 'compose a document..." then the story (of Jesus being the messiah and resurrecting) is true. That just doesn't make much sense when you think about it, and places the burden on the wrong party. Would such a scenario exist today? And would a lack of a "document" mean that the established religious order could not dispute the claims/truth of a new messiah?
I am not saying that there had to be a document, or that the burden of proof was with the establishment. But I would expect some action on the part of the religious leaders to convince the populace to the truth of their position. Wouldn't you? That would be especially true if there was some evidence which could falsify the claims. If a group presented something scientifically wrong which was persuading many to adopt the incorrect view, would you expect the scientific community to sit back and do nothing?
But I would expect some action on the part of the religious leaders to convince the populace to the truth of their position. Such as what, exactly? They already have the 5 books of Moses, right? The Torah, the Talmud. I mean, they have already "proved" to their adherents the truth of their position by virtue of their holy texts. You don't mean "convince the people of the truth of their postition", because the existing religous texts already do that. I think you really mean "reject the position taken by the interlopers". Has your local minister specifically rejected Xenu? Or composed a "document" other than the bible to reject Scientology? Some may have, but not the vast majority.
I meant to reject Christianity. You are right. My pastor hasn't talked specifically about Xenu or Scientology but I have read analysis of most if not all other religions from a Christian perspective showing why they are not true. If the Jews of the day were not worried about the Christian movement then I wouldn't expect any kind of response. But history tells me that they were.
I have heard a student complain that the 80 they received on a test was inappropriate because the omissions on their essay shouldn't have been considered so egregious as to account for a 20 point drop in the grade. Aside from the substance of the complaint, the framework of the complaint was absurd -- we started with 0 points and constructed our argument until time ran out and the argument was evaluated and assessed a numerical grade.
Buckhorn, what things in the ancient world are "supported by reams of documentation, cross-referencing, scientifically collected data, etc."? Nothing from what I can tell. That is a phantom requirement.
Mona There is no requirement, but the lack of such support, whether in regard to ancient claims or those from more recent times, leaves alot to be desired where fantastical claims are concerned. The point was that, as a result, non-fantastical claims and the belief thereof are not the same as beliefs held regarding non-fantastical claims from the same period or other periods, not to mention non-fantastical claims that are actually supported by the aforementioned types of proof or documentation. At bottom the claims are fantastical, so the default position should by my way of thinking be non-belief until good proof comes along. That is not going to satisfy the 'spiritual needs' of everyone, or even a majority of people, so I am fine with different default positions -- my only problem arises when believers in the fantastical have a hard time separating their belief from other worldly endeavors, such as science or managing relations with non-believers. For instance, where ID is concerned, it is my position that proponents have started their essay with a zero count and have hardly scored a point as they do not practice science and yet wish to be graded in the lab. The fact that there is a political underpinning to the movement is all the more maddening. I say in my best cockney lilt 'Leave it'.
And by the way, when I ask if "you want to argue that the gospels are implausible, or that they’re inauthentic?" I do not mean to suggest that you can't argue both of those points. I merely mean that it's dysfunctional to the discussion to argue both at the same time. So which would you like to argue first?
I've started twice to address your questions and, alas, boredom overtakes me. So, I'm giving in. God is good, kind, infallible, omnipotent, and omniscient. The Bible is His inerrant missive to man. This world is the best of all possible worlds. God is in His heaven and all is right with the world.
why is it that some of the most vociferously anti-Christian people on these boards become intellectual cowards when challenged in the basics of their epistemology? is it that difficult to look at your own beliefs?
why is it that some of the most vociferously anti-Christian people on these boards become intellectual cowards when challenged in the basics of their epistemology? is it that difficult to look at your own beliefs? What are you talking about? My comments have largely, if not exclusively, been directed at religious fundamentalists who refuse to accept established science, specifically in the forms of evolution and the age of the earth/cosmos. My "epistemology" (the limits and validity of what I know) stems from that: science. If you want to insist that your holy text is "reliable" or inerrant from a religious or devotional perspective then that's up to you. My participation is not in the form of agreeing with the Southern Baptists that 39 angels dance on the head of pin and not agreeing with the Catholics that the number really is 40, but in the intersection of the religious who refuse to accept science because science conflicts with their religion. It is essentially the equivalent of them saying that since their holy text says 2+2=5 then 2+2 cannot equal 4.
Perham, I specifically had GT in mind since he is the most seemingly bigoted person against Christians in this discussion. But I would similarly love to see you follow Coel's inquiry and see where you end up. You should know that just because someone doesn't accept "established science" (as you define it) doesn't mean they don't accept science or even believe in its incredible value. I don't line up with all of your points but do with one, I doubt the validity of Evolution as it explains the appearance of new species in the fossil record. Needless to say, i hope, i do believe in evolution as it explains adaptation etc. I also accept the generally established age of the earth and the age of the universe as being 3.8 Billion and 14 Billion (approximately) years old. Dionysus, yes, a Christian did just ask that question and I stand behind it. Why don't you prove me wrong and follow Coel's inquiry where it leads. I have explored something similar before with Johnny and GT and if you follow their example you won't get very far when it comes to looking at your own epistemology. GT has as much as thrown up the white flag in this discussion because he no doubt getting very uncomfortable with looking at his own beliefs.
Very well. Let's give buckhorn a chance to respond before we continue further. I'm interested to know his response to my post and yours.
But for the record, more Christians were killed for the cause of Christ in the last Century than in the 19 Centuries previously combined. Can you provide some data on that claim? Do we also need to define "cause of Christ"? Like, are you saying the Jews were killed in WWII in the "cause of Christ"? Because Martin Luther would have said that. Or that WWI was somehow the "cause of Christ"?
Sorry Perham….I don't read Quacks very often. Here is a link to a recent press release regarding Christian martyrdom. I am not sure of their parameters….but consider it a start: EWTN
