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

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

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

  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That seems to be a fairly standard reaction, including instances where it's the response without even troubling to look at what was written[1], and your concluding statement very likely sums up the reason.

    Some folks comfort themselves in the mistaken belief that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous contradictions, foolish over-the-top assertions and other things that "nobody" can make any sense of. And whenever anyone has the gall to dare to contradict any of their usual litany of PRATTs[2], it is viewed as some sort of personal assault. A figurative slap in the face. An attack on the basic pillars of their decision to reject Jesus / Christianity.

    Hence the Pavlovian response of summarily rejecting and ridiculing anything that questions it.





    1. case in point: when I mentioned that Christians didn't co-opt December 25th

    2. and this is not to say that there aren't genuine legitimate questions, but what gets offered up time and time again are almost always the same old tired misconceptions that sound like the person is getting their information out of Dawkins' God Delusion or something equally bottom of the barrel.
    Sadly, atheist sources are usually secondary. The primary sources are most often well regarded theologians. Some of them are even so convincing that they fall for the nonsense themselves and opt out of Christianity.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Oh that is interesting. I suppose as here there are people arriving in Australia who need to improve their new language. .

    Is it open to all? Or just for those of the Christian faith?

    Presumably that is not done in your capacity of a TESOL teacher though?
    The classes that I help with are open to all. Other classes are focussed on Biblical matters, also open to all, but non-Christians tend to self filter and not attend.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    I'm trained to teach at TESOL certificate 4 standard, but not accredited,
    Oh that is interesting. I suppose as here there are people arriving in Australia who need to improve their new language. .

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    and teach as a volunteer in the free "English for conversation classes" at a local Baptist church
    Is it open to all? Or just for those of the Christian faith?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    . Also facilitate for church youth Bible study groups from time to time, though not just now - the latter mostly consists of teaching reading comprehension and encourages the group to direct the course for study sessions.
    Presumably that is not done in your capacity of a TESOL teacher though?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    I'm trained to teach at TESOL certificate 4 standard, but not accredited, and teach as a volunteer in the free "English for conversation classes" at a local Baptist church. Also facilitate for church youth Bible study groups from time to time, though not just now - the latter mostly consists of teaching reading comprehension and encourages the group to direct the course for study sessions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Hardly. It will make for a useful addition to my collection of teaching realia.
    A question. If you are an undergraduate until the end of this semester, how are you permitted to teach? Are you employed in some unaccredited institution? Or are you a lay teacher in a church?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Physical objects used to assist in giving students a feel for the subject at hand, particularly in language teaching. It is probably jargon, made up by academics - but somehow appropriate anyway.

    Here tis: Merriam Webster

    Realia, was first used in the late 19th century, and is still mostly used in the classroom by teachers, especially foreign language teachers. It is also used in library cataloguing (in reference to such bizarre things as an author's hair and teeth donated posthumously) and occasionally finds its way into other contexts as well. You might, for example, hear of someone putting "realia"-objects that represent present-day life-in a time capsule.
    Oh as in real things? I thought it was an acronym of some sort.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Physical objects used to assist in giving students a feel for the subject at hand, particularly in language teaching. It is probably jargon, made up by academics - but somehow appropriate anyway.

    Here tis: Merriam Webster

    Realia, was first used in the late 19th century, and is still mostly used in the classroom by teachers, especially foreign language teachers. It is also used in library cataloguing (in reference to such bizarre things as an author's hair and teeth donated posthumously) and occasionally finds its way into other contexts as well. You might, for example, hear of someone putting "realia"-objects that represent present-day life-in a time capsule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Hardly. It will make for a useful addition to my collection of teaching realia.
    "realia"? I am not familiar with that word.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Hardly. It will make for a useful addition to my collection of teaching realia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Way too precious. I've taken screen shots for posterity.
    Do you want an autographed photograph as well? Isn't that what fans usually request?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That seems to be a fairly standard reaction, including instances where it's the response without even troubling to look at what was written[1], and your concluding statement very likely sums up the reason.

    Some folks comfort themselves in the mistaken belief that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous contradictions, foolish over-the-top assertions and other things that "nobody" can make any sense of. And whenever anyone has the gall to dare to contradict any of their usual litany of PRATTs[2], it is viewed as some sort of personal assault. A figurative slap in the face. An attack on the basic pillars of their decision to reject Jesus / Christianity.

    Hence the Pavlovian response of summarily rejecting and ridiculing anything that questions it.





    1. case in point: when I mentioned that Christians didn't co-opt December 25th

    2. and this is not to say that there aren't genuine legitimate questions, but what gets offered up time and time again are almost always the same old tired misconceptions that sound like the person is getting their information out of Dawkins' God Delusion or something equally bottom of the barrel.
    Yes - it is only a matter of sitting back and waiting for the emu ostrich egg.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Way too precious. I've taken screen shots for posterity.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    The trend is to manufacture excuses to wrest or write off any inconvenient text - but that tendency isn't the sole province of either Christian or Atheist. ... If a word or phrase was inconvenient - redefine it and the problem goes away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post




    In Luke's text he is using the general military term to refer to a governor. It really is that simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Given that the word, ηγεμονευοντος, used by Luke when referring to Quirinius, is not restricted to the meaning of "governor," but can apply to anyone in a command position, there is no evidence that Luke might have been mistaken: even if there was no evidence of Quirinius' being a consul and active in Syria around the time of Christ's birth.
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    With respect to the old chestnut of Quirinius holding the governorship of Syria twice that is now completely rejected, except within the realms of some Christian enthusiasts. It should also be noted that Mr Bryan Windle is neither a Classicist nor a historian. Furthermore the Greek ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] means exactly what it says and the word carries a strong military connotation.



    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    The verb ἡγεμονεύω is a general military term. Consult your complete Liddell Scott. There will you find more than half a page or more of examples from classical sources for this verb and its cognate forms. ...

    Quirinius was not a ”prefect”. He was ex Consular [a very senior position] not a Praefectus

    Last edited by tabibito; 07-10-2021, 12:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post



    Luke does not say that Quirinius was a prefect, he says that Quirinius was ηγεμονευοντος. When I pointed out that ηγεμονευοντος can apply to almost anyone in a command position, my claim was ridiculed.



    You can't afford to allow yourself to believe otherwise.
    That seems to be a fairly standard reaction, including instances where it's the response without even troubling to look at what was written[1], and your concluding statement very likely sums up the reason.

    Some folks comfort themselves in the mistaken belief that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous contradictions, foolish over-the-top assertions and other things that "nobody" can make any sense of. And whenever anyone has the gall to dare to contradict any of their usual litany of PRATTs[2], it is viewed as some sort of personal assault. A figurative slap in the face. An attack on the basic pillars of their decision to reject Jesus / Christianity.

    Hence the Pavlovian response of summarily rejecting and ridiculing anything that questions it.





    1. case in point: when I mentioned that Christians didn't co-opt December 25th

    2. and this is not to say that there aren't genuine legitimate questions, but what gets offered up time and time again are almost always the same old tired misconceptions that sound like the person is getting their information out of Dawkins' God Delusion or something equally bottom of the barrel.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
19 responses
76 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
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
415 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