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

A defense of ECREE

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm


    You're implying that the "great variety of beliefs" were all widely accepted and on equal footing with each other. This was not the case. On the contrary, fringe views like Gnosticism were widely rejected and specifically refuted by the early church fathers.
    the proliferation of protochristian writings as well as the need to quell the doctrines in those texts suggests they weren't fringe but common.
    fringe beliefs wouldn't need to be worried about, as the witness of the holy spirit would naturally correct theological errors as the tradition passed on.

    did the early church fathers believe that fringe errors could spread and dismantle the mission before it even started?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      I take "sufficient" to mean whatever is necessary to convince a reasonable person that a claim is true, "reasonable" meaning without bias and willing to be convinced. In other words, close-minded dogmatists can take a hike.
      Hmm, my edit apparently cleaned up more than I intended it to. Sufficient would probably convince a reasonable person, but that doesn't tell us much. My statement "that a given proposition accounts for all (or nearly all) alternate explanations" is what I had in mind. Explanatory power is key. If we have eight different options that all fit a given claim, we don't have sufficient evidence as to the cause.


      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
      That's a tautology.
      I don't see how, but perhaps my elaboration above will have clarified.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        I have no problem with the concept that what is, today, mainstream Christianity was the most dominant sect, but the evaluation of "fringe" is unwarranted by the evidence as a denotative term.
        Not to mention ultimately irrelevant. 30k+ denominations makes no claim as to the relative status of such denominations beyond their existence.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          What's wrong with cartoons?
          I get the impression that you're pretty new to Tweb, so here's a quick heads up. Most non-theists here don't take much from JPH seriously. The reasons for that vary. Regardless, it's simpler/cleaner to simply link the article a video is using as reference rather than linking a video. Some of us strongly prefer scholarly articles as opposed to any given person's take on it (agreement/disagreement *shouldn't* be terribly relevant). Hope this helps.


          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm Anyway this is the source given with the video. There are a few broad areas. Most denoms are to do with different people groups.
          While you can certainly lump a great many denominations under 'Independents' and therefore as 'Protestants', it's inaccurate to claim that there are really only a few groups. Independents are independents for a reason. Major doctrinal issues may not be the point of schism, but doctrinal issues are still by and large the reason for splits. Personality differences are certainly a major issue. Further, it may be perfectly legitimate to say that some distinct denominations exist because of geographical issues. However, it needs to be shown that such denominations would merge if the geography was non-existent. In some cases that can be done. In others, not so much.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by whag View Post
            the proliferation of protochristian writings as well as the need to quell the doctrines in those texts suggests they weren't fringe but common.
            fringe beliefs wouldn't need to be worried about, as the witness of the holy spirit would naturally correct theological errors as the tradition passed on.

            did the early church fathers believe that fringe errors could spread and dismantle the mission before it even started?
            They were fringe beliefs precisely because the early Church was diligent and ensured that heretical teachings never took hold. To put it another way, Orthodox Christianity won due to survival of the fittest.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              I get the impression that you're pretty new to Tweb, so here's a quick heads up. Most non-theists here don't take much from JPH seriously. The reasons for that vary. Regardless, it's simpler/cleaner to simply link the article a video is using as reference rather than linking a video. Some of us strongly prefer scholarly articles as opposed to any given person's take on it (agreement/disagreement *shouldn't* be terribly relevant). Hope this helps.
              You should watch the video, because your criticism really doesn't apply. JP's TektonTV stuff is designed to be more accessible but he still references scholarly resources. Besides, the videos are amusing.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                They were fringe beliefs precisely because the early Church was diligent and ensured that heretical teachings never took hold. To put it another way, Orthodox Christianity won due to survival of the fittest.
                Such a view contradicts the history. The early branch of the Church that became "orthodoxy" did not have the political power or clout necessary to put down heresy until after the Edict of Milan. Before that time (and after for quite some time, as the presence of the Arian church demonstrates), there were local, sometimes violent, attempts to purge local non-Christians and heretics, but pre-Constantinian Christianity was neither unified nor monolithic.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  You should watch the video, because your criticism really doesn't apply. JP's TektonTV stuff is designed to be more accessible but he still references scholarly resources. Besides, the videos are amusing.
                  I offered no criticism. I stated several facts that are neither favorable nor unfavorable to any particular person.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    Hmm, my edit apparently cleaned up more than I intended it to. Sufficient would probably convince a reasonable person, but that doesn't tell us much. My statement "that a given proposition accounts for all (or nearly all) alternate explanations" is what I had in mind. Explanatory power is key. If we have eight different options that all fit a given claim, we don't have sufficient evidence as to the cause.
                    I'm not sure what you mean by a proposition accounting for alternate explanations.

                    Here's how I approach it: You have facts, and you have explanations. Facts in and of themselves don't tell us anything and must be explained, and the best explanation is the one that accounts for all the facts. This is why ECREE is worthless, because it theorizes before gathering all the facts. As the great detective once said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Outis View Post
                      Such a view contradicts the history. The early branch of the Church that became "orthodoxy" did not have the political power or clout necessary to put down heresy until after the Edict of Milan. Before that time (and after for quite some time, as the presence of the Arian church demonstrates), there were local, sometimes violent, attempts to purge local non-Christians and heretics, but pre-Constantinian Christianity was neither unified nor monolithic.
                      The early Church actively combated heresy and preserved authoritative scripture which is why Orthodoxy was the dominate view by the time Constantine rolled around.

                      At any rate, doctrinal disagreements, then and now, are greatly exaggerated by skeptics.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        They were fringe beliefs precisely because the early Church was diligent and ensured that heretical teachings never took hold.
                        First you implied they were fringe because the beliefs were naturally unpopular. But now you're saying they were fringe because men actively snuffed those ideas out before they leavened the whole lump.

                        Without that intervention, would those beliefs have taken hold?

                        To put it another way, Orthodox Christianity won due to survival of the fittest.
                        What you're describing is survival due to active human quelling, not survival due to the innate strength of orthodoxy.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          The early Church actively combated heresy and preserved authoritative scripture which is why Orthodoxy was the dominate view by the time Constantine rolled around.

                          At any rate, doctrinal disagreements, then and now, are greatly exaggerated by skeptics.
                          The doctrinal disagreements back then are well attested in non-canonical writings. They vary so widely they require no exaggeration.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            You should watch the video, because your criticism really doesn't apply. JP's TektonTV stuff is designed to be more accessible but he still references scholarly resources. Besides, the videos are amusing.
                            That video is a bad cartoon. It's amusing but in a different way than you think.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The early Church actively combated heresy and preserved authoritative scripture which is why Orthodoxy was the dominate view by the time Constantine rolled around.
                              At the time Constantine rolled around, you still had Marcionism, Montanism, and the Valentian-style Gnosticism. These were numerically sufficient to be actual competition, not simply "fringe" movements with few adherents. Indeed, the Marcionist churches survived into the 5th century, even in the face of competition from the "approved" version.

                              Additionally, even within what would later become "orthodox" Christianity, you had a great deal of theological foment and variance.

                              At any rate, doctrinal disagreements, then and now, are greatly exaggerated by skeptics.
                              Which is a splendid way of dismissing arguments that you disagree with, without having to address the evidence for those arguments.

                              For those who actually want to examine the evidence, I strongly recommend Eamon Duffy's _Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes_ and Bart Ehrman's _The New Testament: A Historical Introduction_. Ehrman has some able critics, so for a more complete picture, I also recommend Larry W. Hurtado's _Lord Jesus Christ_.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                You should watch the video
                                I have slightly more respect for JHP than I do for John Loftus or Richard Carrier, but not much. All three dishonestly handle the corpus of scholarly evidence, selectively cherry-picking the elements that they approve of, while ignoring or deriding those sources that do not agree with their presupposed positions.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 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  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X