Split off of Wilkowsky's posts in Christianity 201

[Teallaura]

There's something besides a human with an historical perspective? I thought we agreed academics aren't aliens...

[shunyadragon]

"Unbiased" - humans don't come in that size.

I did not refer to individual humans. Like science, academic history as whole does not have the level of bias that individual may have. I pretty much rely on a consensus, and not individual historians, also the reasons they give for their conclusions is important. The same goes for science. The question relates to what is the 'best' explanation, which may take several scenarios into consideration. When making this judgment it is best that religious belief not contribute to bias.

[Teallaura]

"Unbiased" - humans don't come in that size.

[shunyadragon]

So we agree - we minimize the bias but don't believe in the ridiculous notion of perfect human impartiality.

Knowledge may grow over time and it may be corrected - but it doesn't 'evolve' in the colloquial sense of the term.

Since when did ever propose the 'ridiculous notion of perfect human impartiality.'

[Teallaura]

So we agree - we minimize the bias but don't believe in the ridiculous notion of perfect human impartiality.

Knowledge may grow over time and it may be corrected - but it doesn't 'evolve' in the colloquial sense of the term.

[shunyadragon]

Academics aren't aliens, have biases and may or may not incorporate an historical perspective - eliminating 2 of the three criteria and in some cases all three. I presume you meant 'independent' and not 'outside' but that's still a highly relative term. Unbiased is almost non-existent - and in this case, the few exceptions probably don't apply.

I propose that your criteria are silly. Of course all examiners will have bias - which is fine so long as they acknowledge it and minimize as much as possible. The chances of a truly independent examiner are tiny - most people have some investment in their religious beliefs/background - which is also fine as long as it is acknowledged and minimized (or at least pointed out when not possible). Presuming that an ivory tower shields the occupant from human foible is silly. Doing so to the degree that one excludes all other observers is foolish.

No, of course, historians are not aliens, but like science, academic history has a good track record over time and not dependent on the fallibility and bias of individuals. History and science is dependent on good academic standards, and peer review over time. When I study the results of the research I use a collective balanced approach, and recognize that our knowledge evolves over time.

[Teallaura]

Contemporary academic methodology is not irrational. Do propose that Christian theologians represent an unbiased perspective?

Academics aren't aliens, have biases and may or may not incorporate an historical perspective - eliminating 2 of the three criteria and in some cases all three. I presume you meant 'independent' and not 'outside' but that's still a highly relative term. Unbiased is almost non-existent - and in this case, the few exceptions probably don't apply.

I propose that your criteria are silly. Of course all examiners will have bias - which is fine so long as they acknowledge it and minimize as much as possible. The chances of a truly independent examiner are tiny - most people have some investment in their religious beliefs/background - which is also fine as long as it is acknowledged and minimized (or at least pointed out when not possible). Presuming that an ivory tower shields the occupant from human foible is silly. Doing so to the degree that one excludes all other observers is foolish.

[Wilkowsky]

Thanks for all responses. It's been great to know your opinions and they were helpful to me. I've understood I must stop being so emotional about it all, get over it that everyone (including me) is biased, watch out for rhetoric (I've noticed that morons are often the most confident speaking people, it seems they're too stupid to doubt) and just start working my way through this vast jungle of different opinions, arguments and counter-arguments.

Thank you all.

[shunyadragon]

Since 'outside, unbiased, historical perspective' doesn't exist, this objection is silly. Perfectly fine if that's what you want to do - but its irrational as a methodology.

Contemporary academic methodology is not irrational. Do propose that Christian theologians represent an unbiased perspective?

[Teallaura]

I do not consider it the best explanation from an outside unbiased historical perspective. None the less it is the traditional Christian explanation.

Since 'outside, unbiased, historical perspective' doesn't exist, this objection is silly. Perfectly fine if that's what you want to do - but its irrational as a methodology.

[shunyadragon]

Indeed. The Resurrection is the best explanation of all the facts surrounding the empty tomb and changed lives of the disciples.

I do not consider it the best explanation from an outside unbiased historical perspective. None the less it is the traditional Christian explanation.

[Teallaura]

Bad wording on my part, then.

Not that bad - it just struck me as funny. No criticism intended.

I did mention that I'm easily amused, right?

[Carrikature]

The 'vice versa' is what made it so funny to me - they are the opposing sides so the vice versa only sends us back to the first one.

Yes, I'm easily amused...

Bad wording on my part, then.

[Teallaura]

It's redundant, but on purpose. I can't count how many times I've seen people reject scholars based on their faith, as if that automatically undermines their ability or claims. I've seen it on both sides of the fence, too, which is why I included the 'vice versa'.

Oh, I fully agree with the point. The wording, however...

The 'vice versa' is what made it so funny to me - they are the opposing sides so the vice versa only sends us back to the first one.

Yes, I'm easily amused...

[One Bad Pig]

I see it this way: when they were martyred they were already respected leaders among their people. So it makes sense they'd rather choose death than get back to being simple fishermen or whatever they were doing.

I don't know that it would make sense to choose death; though many people in the early church accepted martyrdom when faced with it, many others recanted in order to live.

On the other hand they'd be ridiculed and would face the threat of death through all of their "career", not just at the end. And that's something to consider.

And Peter's open preaching in Acts started within weeks of his teacher being put to death by the authorities.

I don't want to sound like a fundy atheist but are there any evidence for that from outside the Bible or church tradition? Or could you demonstrate that the tradition is reliable in this matter?

The martyrdom of James is related by Josephus. I'm not aware of any others explicitly, but the killing of Christians by order of Nero is attested in secular histories.

Don't you guys believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches? Or is it just Catholic people? Or I get it completely wrong?

There are some who do.

I do have a problem with Protestant churches being plankton essentially. On the other hand some of Catholic (I don't know much about Orthodoxy but I suppose you share at least some tradition with them) practices seem to me superfluous at best and at worst contradicting the Bible.

We'd have to discuss specifics on this, I think.

As an aside, you might find the story of Klaus Kenneth interesting.