Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Those over there! .... They are not Christians!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by eider View Post

    It sounds as if his main objective was the promotion of Duane Gish!
    Ah...... those jokes...... yes, he played to an audience.
    Fair enough, I expect that his debates were very good viewing/listening once or twice.
    Even his supporters, like Henry Morris who founded the creationist organization that Gish worked for (Institute for Creation Research -- ICR) declared, while praising his command of the subject ​, acknowledge his success was more due to his personality saying "but it was perhaps his personal presentation that carried the day. In short, the audiences liked him." He usually seemed cheerful, the "Happy Warrior" so to speak.

    I should add that creationists often bussed in large numbers of people to pack the audience for his debates so that might account for part of the reason for why "the audiences liked him."

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by eider View Post

      There are no experts, thormas.

      If you name an 'expert' together with their basic belief about HJ, or Christianity, then I would be pleased to name an 'expert' who disagrees with your expert. So the experts cancel each other out. This can go on, until in the end you just make your own case from your own research......... Now that has value.

      But, it's true to say that when folks argue/debate an issue that pieces of information fly up, giving a spectator/participant a new 'angle' about something. That's how I learn more, I admit.

      But scholar flag waving is a waste of time, only the scholar's findings are worthy, not their opinions, imo.

      Try it...... Name a scholar with their opinion about Jesus, or Christianity.
      Then, at least, there are degrees of expertise and also those who have no idea what they are talking about.

      Experts include Ehrman, Allison, Fredriksen, Vermes, Levine, Hart, Brown, Johnson, Dunn (off the top of my head) to name a few. I have no desire or time to present their individual or consensus views. But give me (off the top of your head) some of the experts 5 experts to my 9) you read and whose position you support - just names, like I have presented, would be a start. And they don't cancel each other out. And, quite honestly, I have no idea who supports your position that you have put forth about, for example, Mark. Anybody can make their own case but the question is - is it credible, what do they bring to the party to make such a determination: ancient languages, expertise in 2nd Temple Judaism or apocalyptic beliefs during the time of Jesus or Roman procedures in occupied lands, specifically Palestine or in oral traditions, gospels sources, or in genres in the NT gospels.......just to name a few.

      Sorry but doing your own research means not only reading original documents (how many do we have for the NT) but consulting experts in the field......just like doing a history of George Washington or Benjamin Rush requires both researching original documents but also reading and referencing experts who have gone before you that you consult. This is research, something that most of us learned in high school, and used in college or higher education.......or even the 'regular guy' who is interested in a subject, when asking "how do I research" - this is what knowledgable people would tell him. To not do real research is to have questionable conclusions about one's subject of interest.

      Scholarly findings need interpretation or explanation..........that why god created scholarly books :+}

      Do you actually use scholars, experts? You have been asked before and you came back with quotes from Mark - no masses of research??
      Last edited by thormas; 01-18-2021, 04:23 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by thormas View Post

        Then, at least, there are degrees of expertise and also those who have no idea what they are talking about.

        Experts include Ehrman,...
        You lost a whole lot of credibility starting off like that

        This goes into what I was talking about when I wrote

        I'll also add that in many cases that someone is regarded as an expert based on being a leading proponent of a certain idea, not because they really know what they're talking about. They might be a second rate intellect compared to others who are the top in their field but get the same level of respect as those who have really put in the work researching and examining a study and have an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.


        His arguments tend to be weak and sloppy, and IMHBAO, confuses eisegesis for exegesis

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          You lost a whole lot of credibility starting off like that

          This goes into what I was talking about when I wrote

          I'll also add that in many cases that someone is regarded as an expert based on being a leading proponent of a certain idea, not because they really know what they're talking about. They might be a second rate intellect compared to others who are the top in their field but get the same level of respect as those who have really put in the work researching and examining a study and have an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.


          His arguments tend to be weak and sloppy, and IMHBAO, confuses eisegesis for exegesis
          And you lost all credibility if you relegate Ehrman to second rate intellects :+} And do you have an opinion on the others?

          Ehrman is not the leading proponent of a certain idea, rather his research is wide ranging and in line with most other critical biblical schools and/or early Christian historians.

          Sorry but you would have to specify his 'weak, sloppy arguments' and where exactly he reads into the texts (but I know that is a labor) then we would have to see how they stack up against other scholars. And your opinion may be humble but accuracy is a whole other issue.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by thormas View Post

            And you lost all credibility if you relegate Ehrman to second rate intellects :+} And do you have an opinion on the others?

            Ehrman is not the leading proponent of a certain idea, rather his research is wide ranging and in line with most other critical biblical schools and/or early Christian historians.

            Sorry but you would have to specify his 'weak, sloppy arguments' and where exactly he reads into the texts (but I know that is a labor) then we would have to see how they stack up against other scholars. And your opinion may be humble but accuracy is a whole other issue.
            Ehrman's stature is almost entirely based on his position of being the most well known of those who take his position and little else. As I said he often confuses eisegesis for exegesis.

            As for the others, I'm familiar with a few of them, and heard of a couple more but don't know enough concerning them to fairly comment.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Ehrman's stature is almost entirely based on his position of being the most well known of those who take his position and little else. As I said he often confuses eisegesis for exegesis.

              As for the others, I'm familiar with a few of them, and heard of a couple more but don't know enough concerning them to fairly comment.
              With reference to Ehrman, you were requested by thormas to "specify his 'weak, sloppy arguments' and give examples of where, in your opinion, he "confuses eisegesis for exegesis".

              We all await your pronouncements on Ehrman and his failings.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                With reference to Ehrman, you were requested by thormas to "specify his 'weak, sloppy arguments' and give examples of where, in your opinion, he "confuses eisegesis for exegesis".

                We all await your pronouncements on Ehrman and his failings.
                I really don't care what you're awaiting.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by eider View Post

                  It sounds as if his main objective was the promotion of Duane Gish!
                  Ah...... those jokes...... yes, he played to an audience.
                  Fair enough, I expect that his debates were very good viewing/listening once or twice.
                  OR, and this is why I made the comparison, the self-promotion of Donald Trump.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by thormas View Post

                    And you lost all credibility if you relegate Ehrman to second rate intellects :+} And do you have an opinion on the others?

                    Ehrman is not the leading proponent of a certain idea, rather his research is wide ranging and in line with most other critical biblical schools and/or early Christian historians.

                    Sorry but you would have to specify his 'weak, sloppy arguments' and where exactly he reads into the texts (but I know that is a labor) then we would have to see how they stack up against other scholars. And your opinion may be humble but accuracy is a whole other issue.
                    I would not advise you to hold your breath!

                    Given the reply made to me at post #97 it appears to be nothing but pretentious affectation and "hot air".

                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      In situations such as these I think it is a good idea to keep the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

                      While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine did hold[1] it actually appears to have originated with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in his De republica ecclesiastica from or around 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing in his Paraenesis votiva pro pace ecclesiae ad theologos Augustanae Confessionis

                      The point being is that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on things that aren't a requisite to being a Christian, or salvific, although for the bedrock pillars of the faith there should be unity among Christians.




                      1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

                      "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
                      That saying does not come from de Dominis - nor from Philip Melanchthon, to whom it has also been attributed. It is the kind of thing Sebastian Castellio or George Calixtus might have said.

                      At least for now, it is a quotation from that prolific author Unknown.
                      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 01-18-2021, 08:51 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        I think you'll find that in every field and not just scholarly ones. You can, for instance, get two of the world's top auto mechanics together and they could very well argue what is the most efficient way to, let's say, vent the exhaust.

                        Just because you have some disagreement doesn't mean you should simply toss out expert opinion on things.

                        I'll also add that in many cases that someone is regarded as an expert based on being a leading proponent of a certain idea, not because they really know what they're talking about. They might be a second rate intellect compared to others who are the top in their field but get the same level of respect as those who have really put in the work researching and examining a study and have an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

                        And some are seen as top experts simply because they are good with words and or charismatic. For instance I'd put Richard Dawkins in this category. While he really does have a good understanding of how evolution works there are others that put him to shame but don't get nearly the same level of attention or credit because Dawkins is really eloquent. His books in the field are a pleasure to read.
                        Good points all.
                        I don't toss out qualified opinion, A bunch of very clever people realised that I was very very ill when I felt great, rushed me in to hospital at 15 hours notice and saved my right kidney in an operation next day. Experts. Well, specialists.

                        I just treat the title 'expert' with extreme caution.
                        By all means tell me about somebody's work in historical or theological research, but you won't get more attention from me by calling them an expert. Ad Hominem.

                        I have experienced 1st hand over decades the whole crazy business of 'attested attested expert expert witnesses'. If you can become recognised by the Court System as an expert the fees and expenses can really roll in, and you can gain lots of extra by writing articles for magazines, or give interviews on telly and to the press. You are an 'Expert'!

                        In Court cases, where one side produced an expert to tell a jury that (say) a tyre track was almost certainly made by a particular vehicle's offside front tyre, an equal expert a could then give evidence for the other side to throw doubt or junk that evidence. And the money!!

                        One Journalist figured that the expert witness situation was a complete joke and so built up an imaginary forthcoming case where he needed expert witnesses to lie through their teeth on his behalf. He just had to pay them! The resulting television programme was a revelation. The Handwriting Identification Expert who (back then) wrote the training course in that discipline for the Metropolitan Police Force of London (initials:M.A.) got caught taking a massive fee to write a report which destroyed obvious 'evidence' against the jounalist in his imaginary case. Love it!

                        I occasionally worked with a fingerprint specialist and he could 'spin' evidence so easily, he boasted about it to friends and made the most money when on such jobs. His greatest claim to fame was that he worked on the front line in the 'Birmingham Pub Bombing' investigation. He mentioned this in his resumees, interviews, articles..... all the time. He was a sham, and years later when all the persons convicted in that case were acquitted, pardoned and released...... he stopped the boasting.

                        Just give the evidence. The fact that the researcher has an impressive resumee cannot make the evidence better or worse. Ad Hominem arguments are just that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                          OR, and this is why I made the comparison, the self-promotion of Donald Trump.
                          We loved watching President Trump giving speeches.
                          In a good speech we could accumulate many of his favourit words.
                          Fantastic. Wonderful. Best. Brilliant. Amazing. etc....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Ehrman's stature is almost entirely based on his position of being the most well known of those who take his position and little else.
                            Yes! Absolutely!
                            Hear hear!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                              And you lost all credibility if you relegate Ehrman to second rate intellects :+} And do you have an opinion on the others?

                              Ehrman is not the leading proponent of a certain idea, rather his research is wide ranging and in line with most other critical biblical schools and/or early Christian historians.
                              Humanity has listened to the 'Experts' too often and too long.
                              For example, the Pope was/is considered one of the authorities on all matters relating to God and Christ. True?
                              Well, I can't remember which but you might..... Which Pope woke up one morning and decided that Mary Magdalene had been/was a prostitute? Remember?
                              The Christian World rushed to that junk and clutched it to breast for hundreds of years.
                              But more recently (can't remember exactly) yet another Pope apologised and retracted that indictment.

                              Let's not hang on people's opinions because they have some kind of position.

                              Sorry but you would have to specify his 'weak, sloppy arguments' and where exactly he reads into the texts (but I know that is a labor) then we would have to see how they stack up against other scholars. And your opinion may be humble but accuracy is a whole other issue.
                              Oh my goodness. !!
                              I don't think that I ever read any of his ideas that didn't look weak and sloppy. I burned his books when I burned Crosson's, if remember right, so don;'t ask me to look up something to show here. And they weren't cheap books. Crossons was £28 I remember.

                              Ehrman's idea will show up here occasionally, no doubt.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                                Then, at least, there are degrees of expertise and also those who have no idea what they are talking about.

                                Experts include Ehrman, Allison, Fredriksen, Vermes, Levine, Hart, Brown, Johnson, Dunn (off the top of my head) to name a few. I have no desire or time to present their individual or consensus views. But give me (off the top of your head) some of the experts 5 experts to my 9) you read and whose position you support - just names, like I have presented, would be a start. And they don't cancel each other out. And, quite honestly, I have no idea who supports your position that you have put forth about, for example, Mark. Anybody can make their own case but the question is - is it credible, what do they bring to the party to make such a determination: ancient languages, expertise in 2nd Temple Judaism or apocalyptic beliefs during the time of Jesus or Roman procedures in occupied lands, specifically Palestine or in oral traditions, gospels sources, or in genres in the NT gospels.......just to name a few.
                                I really did appreciate reading Geza Vermes.
                                I once quoted Vermes and also Sanders in a discussion and somebody replied that they were not on the cutting edge of theological research. !!!!

                                Sorry but doing your own research means not only reading original documents (how many do we have for the NT) but consulting experts in the field......just like doing a history of George Washington or Benjamin Rush requires both researching original documents but also reading and referencing experts who have gone before you that you consult. This is research, something that most of us learned in high school, and used in college or higher education.......or even the 'regular guy' who is interested in a subject, when asking "how do I research" - this is what knowledgable people would tell him. To not do real research is to have questionable conclusions about one's subject of interest.
                                I'll accept your apology. That's alright.

                                I'll stop you there. I've got something to tell you.

                                Any kind of research is good, including referring to other people's searches, but:-

                                Individual Investigation before Institutional Indoctrination

                                Every time.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X