Open with the same message I did in RD room.

"I have said again and again I do respect atheist SCHOLARS such as Crossan and Ludemann" - krkey

Something is sound or unsound, true or not true regardless of who said it.

Your entire metalogic is based on a fallacy.

You could make a valid SNR argument to defend why you may not have been _aware_ of some argument on this basis, but to reject the information for reasons other than the merit, once presented, betrays you. You are not interested in the truth. You are interested in getting people to _believe_ your fiction. I suspect from my short but deep reading of this place that won't happen.

I also suspect that if you actually made a sound logical case or presented evidence to support your case you would find many people did actually come to your side.

It's a point of pride with "us" (if I may presume) that we always do adopt new thought when it's proven. I doubt that makes any sense to you at all. I am sure you think I am lying, as I am sure you think other people are like you. The dishonest always do and you must assume we are all as intellectually dishonest as you are. But we aren't all like you. In fact it is for this very reason that some come to think in these ways. Refusal to be intellectually dishonest to oneself.

I, for one, mortal as anyone else, would dearly love to think what you believe. I doubt you can fathom how much I dearly want to. However I will not believe. Anything. My life is too short to fill my mind with fancies when reality is endlessly fascinating and endlessly terrible already. I may change my mind at a further date as my death approaches and retreat to belief. But it will be a sour and humiliating retreat.

FK
 
Keneke said:


For the last time, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT. Could Oz be historic and therefore similar to the bible? Fine! That assumption does not invalidate my point.

Do you even understand my position?

I will state it one more time since you don't seem to be listening to me: WoO is not as good of a book for comparison with the Bible than another book presented as historical.
Click to expand...

Consider this thread to be my presentation of the Wizard of Oz as historical.

This is the point. The fact that I can present as good of a case for the historicity of the WoO, based on the contents of the books alone, tells us an awful lot about how fruitful of an exercise it is.

Who cares if anyone actually presents it as historical? The question is whether it _can_ be presented as historical.
 
I sincerely doubt that Faithkills, I have seen atheist agree that Jesus lived, Crucified and diead, the tomb was empty, the apostles saw him after his death. They explain every necessary factor for Christianity as a mass hallucination. I do not believe you are lying, but the first thing I learned as a Christian was that it demands a complete reorientation of ones life, and I had to give up some stuff I found to be rather pleasurable, such as premartial sex. Those things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff. My only advice to you would be to study the evidence for the resurrection, read anything by Craig and study the secular explanations. In the end you might come away as I did and realize it takes more faith to accept the secular ones.

I do not use nonscholars because I am a laymen in the end it is simply a form or protection for me( against false knowledge) and it offers a far greater chance that the information will be valid. Would you consider using a first year law student to defend you at a trial?
 
krkey said:
I do not use nonscholars because I am a laymen in the end it is simply a form or protection for me( against false knowledge) and it offers a far greater chance that the information will be valid. Would you consider using a first year law student to defend you at a trial?
Click to expand...

This is still a false analogy. To disregard a point because of the source is to concede the point.
 
"I have seen atheist agree that Jesus lived, Crucified and diead, the tomb was empty, the apostles saw him after his death" - krkey

I don't want to debate the term atheist atm, but there are two basic flavors. Those who believe there is no god, who are basically no different from you, and probably should be more properly called antitheists. And those who, lacking data to support the premise, simply don't count the existance of a divine Jesus among useful and significant knowlege to concern oneself with. In any event the term atheist has become so overloaded that it's usefulness in debate is largely mitigated.

However I would doubt the former type would ever stipulate apostles saw a resurrected Jesus.

" had to give up some stuff I found to be rather pleasurable, such as premartial sex. Those things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff" - krkey

Hehe, boy you make it tough to pass up, but for the sake of argument, I'll merely address the implication.

If the suggestion is that a philosophy has merit based on, and in proportion to, the sacrifice it entails, I can assure you giving up the belief in an eternal soul and eternal life for the cause of intellectual integrity is a far greater sacrifice than any premarital sex you may, or may not have, had the opportunity to indulge in. And for a far lesser reward.

I can assure you that on my deathbed the premarital sex I engaged in will not figure prominently in my thinking.

"In the end you might come away as I did and realize it takes more faith to accept the secular ones." - krkey

If Knowlege is power, then Faith is the abdication of power. I do not accept a god for whom the greatest virtue is believing something without proof. I submit to you that getting you to believe something without proof benefits other men more than it would benefit a god. Think about that. I would like to believe in a god of love, or pleasure, or happiness. Faith, not so much.

"a form or protection for me( against false knowledge)" - krkey

Do you have so little confidence in yourself that you cannot determine consistency yourself? If this lack of confidence in your ability is founded in any way, then it is even more likely this is a waste of time.

" Would you consider using a first year law student to defend you at a trial?" - krkey

This isn't the question though is it? The question is rather, having the choice of whose defense to accept after seeing both defenses performed, I chose to take the one that succeeded regardless of the credentials.

But if I WERE in the position to have to choose, without knowlege, I would listen to the projected defenses and form my own opinion.

If I could not have even that I would go by credentials as a last resort. I would not at all be happy about this.

Krkey, in your 'heart', or rather the holographic thinking part of your brain, you must know the answer. So I ask you.. why do this? You seem to have a measure of intelligence.. do you think you will be able to successfully delude yourself forever? You are wasting time, and deep down I think you know how limited that time is. You came here, I suspect from one part ego, clearly, but the other part is to test the mettle of your delusion. I think you have sense enough to know what's coming and you want to make sure you are covered. But in the end it's more than possible you will not be able to escape your own intellect. A guess on my part, maybe I am wrong. Maybe you can keep the delusion together long enough to serve you and comfort you till you die. But coming to places like this is not the best way to increase your chances of success. And be warned if it falls apart late in the game you will be in a world of hurt.

You ask of others that they capitulate to faith. Perhaps you should capitulate to the knowable and reality? Barring that at least capitulate wholly to faith and stop trying to construct a rationale out of the unreasonable.

You can build a bridge out of rainbows, but I for one am not going to be traversing it. But I sympathize completely with where you want to build the bridge to. I want to go there too.

Kansas sucks the big green one.

FK
 
krkey said:
the first thing I learned as a Christian was that it demands a complete reorientation of ones life, and I had to give up some stuff I found to be rather pleasurable, such as premartial sex. Those things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff.
Click to expand...

I know these questions are personal, but I hope you will answer them:

How long have you been a Christian?
What were you before that?
How did you become a Christian?
Do you belong to a denomination? Which one?

Thanks.
 
pgwenthold said:

The fact that I can present as good of a case for the historicity of the WoO, based on the contents of the books alone, tells us an awful lot about how fruitful of an exercise it is.
Click to expand...

Yes, if society's predisposition for filing WoO under fiction is taken away. The angle I was coming from is that because of people "common knowledge" that WoO is fiction, we should compare the Bible to something more historical (yet still fiction) in order to show them by analogy the error of their ways. That's all. Nothing else. I never stated that you can or can not prove WoO is history.
 
Why Krkey is a fraud

To call JD Crossan an aetheist is proof positive. Unless something has changed from all of his books, he's a former Catholic monk, a professor at a xian univerity, and an avowed christian.

His other arguments are false by hyperbole.

Everything he says is a giant "One True Scotsman" fallacy.

e.g. "It's not borrowing unless its verbatim"

"You're not a scholar unless you agree with me."

on

and on

and on
 
Gregor still doesnt get it. Crossan- "God did not exist during the Jurassic Period" if you assert God does not exist then you are an atheist. If you assert Jesus was eaten by dogs and never rose then you are nonbeliever at the least.

Yes I am a sticker for scholarship. If he could have explained how the clowns Wells, Doherty and Maccoby are qualified scholars then I would have backed off this argument a long time ago.

All he has to do to kick over my arguments against a Luke-Josephan connection is to find one part of Josephus that luke uses verbatim. I managed to find a verbatim connection between Mark and Luke, why can't he do this with Luke and Josephus( I wonder why) Notice something folks, he never tried to kick over my argument against luke contradicting details in Josephus, omitting relevant details from Josephus, non use of Paul's writings and Lukes hellenistic knowledge. All he has to offer is some connection which are so general they could be used to prove any document is connect to another document.

Folks I was going to stick around and try to do something productive in here. But I can see that this is simply a waste of time as the infidels in here are at best a little better then Young Earth Creationist, they denigrate and refuse to use scholarship that doesnt support their pet historical views.( Before anyone says anything about me I have said again and again I have no problem with Atheist bible scholars) And just as YECs have their favorite nonscientist I can see the infidels have their favorite nonhistorians, who for whatever reason they believe are more qualified then real historians or bible scholars. All in all I refuse to muck in the mud of this intellectual nonsense anymore.
 
krkey,

Adam and Eve
Cain and Abel
Tower of Babel
Jonah in the big fish
Noah and the Flood
The Adventures of Lot
Moses and the Exodus

Are these real to you?


You seem to be having a difficult time with this.
 
You sir, are an intellectual of the basest sort.

You gird yourself in the "scholarship" of others, but refuse to participate in the activity yourself.

Stand apprised that you can quote god himself and it would not make a whit of difference;)

Think and argue for yourself or don't kid yourself that you are engaged in thought. You are engaged in belief, and justification thereof, which is, alas your right. But don't expect it to stand in the place of reason or be accepted as such.

When arguing amongst believers there are rules. Those rules demand that no one looks behind anyone else's curtain since there's a man behind each. My what a pretty god you have.. but have you seen mine?

Thus you are frustrated when attempting to debate non-believers, who tend to go straight to the heart of the matter.

Yes, yes, I know. Yours goes to eleven.

Taa.

FK
 
krkey said:
IThose things are not easy to give up and I do sincerely believe many objections to Christianity are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff.
Click to expand...
Why? Having to give them up didn't stop you from becoming Christian. Why do you think it prevents other people?

You seem to be implying that you can overcome your base desires, but other people simply lack the moral strength to do so. It sure sounds like you think you're better than the rest of us.

I recognize this attitude, because I share it. Giving up the security blanket of God, facing death and moral uncertainity, is really difficult. Not everybody has the moral strength to do it. I sincerely believe that many objections to Atheism are simply smoke screens to protect a person from giving up such stuff.

Hmm, well, now we have two people claiming to be more moral than other one. That's not very helpful How can we decide which one really is more moral?

Here's a test: supposed I die, and find myself before the Pearly Gates. St. Peter says to me, "There's a been a bit of a mix-up in the Book of Life, and we're not sure if you were an atheist or a Christian. Could you please tell me what you are, right now, and that will be good enough."

How would you answer this question?

Here's my answer: "Is there a place called Hell? Does it have anybody in it? Because if there is, then I am not a Christian. My moral nature cannot allow me to be happy in Heaven while people are unjustly suffering in Hell."

Now you tell me which answer is more moral: yours or mine.
 
krkey said:
But I can see that this is simply a waste of time as the infidels in here are at best a little better then Young Earth Creationist, they denigrate and refuse to use scholarship that doesnt support their pet historical views
Click to expand...
Hey chunky boy - none of the arguments I advanced to you questioned the validity of your scholars. None. You ignored them. The only arguments you chose to respond to were ones that questioned your authorities, and now you are running away because you can't win those arguments.

You came in here with no other agenda than arguing that your Bible believers are the only true authorities, and when people challenged you on that, you whined and ran away.

I really expected more of you. I have no idea why, but I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom