killa_chuck Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 I haven't read this paper yet because i just received it. Some guy trying to see what it would take to convert me back to Christianity sent it to me. I'm sure I won't be too impressed (from talking to the guy), but read along with me, if you would, and let me in on what you're thinking. First post since I have registered again! Blind_faith_or_faith_based_on_eyewitness_testimony.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Welcome back... I had a feeling that name was familiar. Evidence.... Evidence does not always imply proof. Evidence pretty much fans the flames of speculation, which is not the ultimate proof of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Welcome back... I had a feeling that name was familiar. Evidence.... Evidence does not always imply proof. Evidence pretty much fans the flames of speculation, which is not the ultimate proof of anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The more evidences then the more reason for confidences. The xer aint even got contemporary eye witness's testimony of jesus. They have NOTHING for jesus that would give a rational person confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Presuppositional bullshit... Basing the *truth* on the bibul (trusting its inerrancy alone is foolish at best, ignorant at worst), then using selected "cherry picked" versed to try and prove his thesis is borderline assanine. Eighteen long pages of slathered on, "gee we've heard al this before" pollo guano.. Tell him to cluck off.. k, far from impressed, L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killa_chuck Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 I decided to post this because "the guy" claimed that the authors of the gospels were "definitely known" and that I had just not been paying attention to arcaheological finds in the past few years. I have a pretty strong bullshit detector and I'm sure he's apologizing his ass off about this, but he also made the claim that the contradictions in the different gospels and their different accounts are all part of a certain "writing style". It doesn't seem very convincing (not at all actually) considering how different some of the gospels get about different aspects in the Jesus story. Even if the gospels matched up with one another and they contained no contradictions, it really wouldn't mean much to me as far as going with Christianity as a relgion. I'm just the curious type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killa_chuck Posted August 3, 2005 Author Share Posted August 3, 2005 Presuppositional bullshit... Basing the *truth* on the bibul (trusting its inerrancy alone is foolish at best, ignorant at worst), then using selected "cherry picked" versed to try and prove his thesis is borderline assanine. Eighteen long pages of slathered on, "gee we've heard al this before" pollo guano.. Tell him to cluck off.. k, far from impressed, L. Yeah, he was making a conclusion beforehand and then reaching for anything to back it up. I have lots of friends like this...family too...I'm always wondering how I can make them see it from the non-dogmatic perspective. Definitely far from impressed myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 This is the core of the debate that has been going on for many years now between fundamentalist versus liberal theological approaches to the Christian faith. The Christian Existentialist Kierkegaard was the first I believe to use "Leap of Faith" to describe believing in something which defied rationality. The fundamentalist of course interprets Biblical stories in such ways as to make the evidence factual, and so therefore their "faith" is based in real history and not some "Escape from Reason" (to use the title from the late Dr. Francis Shaffer's book of that name discussing this topic). If the fundamentalist wishes their definition of faith to mean acceptance of reliable evidence, then so be it. It is their grave. To most people, the fundamentalist’s rationalizing to make the Bible inerrant, and subsequently their beliefs being based on rationality instead of a leap into an “upper story experience”, is a tragic display of their desperation. It is as obvious and ridiculous as trying to say the weight of scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution is questionable. (It took them how many years to finally accept the Earth was not the center of the Universe? That behavior is identical to this in how that approach to “faith” operates). “Faith” in the fundamentalist use, is more about wanting to cling to a belief when the evidence smacks you over the head so hard it is nearly impossible to ignore. “Faith” in the liberal sense, is choosing to believe in something because it has symbolic meaning to you, but you’re not so foolish as to try to argue it’s really true - like choosing to celebrate Santa Clause even though you know he’s not real. Now if the fundamentalist for some reason wanted to believe in the old fellow, what absurd “evidence” might they produce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatifidontwantausername? Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 I know this is totaly off topic, but did anyone else laugh their bum bums off at "He wanted to feel the mark of the nails and the spear wound in the side of Jesus. Jesus gave him the evidence he wanted and only then did he believe in the risen Jesus." Maybe I'm weird... Anywho I totaly disregarded it because in the first 3 pages it seemed like he was trying to use the bible to proove the bible, along with very vague referances to "Evidence." All the while telling us that we were never REALY Christians without looking at this evidence. I was honestly waiting for them to ask for a donation. -Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Why do xtians think they can use the bible as proof of itself? This paper was peppered with verses showing how the bible presents evidence for belief in itself. Edit: Sorry username, you said basically the same thing; I spoke too soon. Anyway, I'm glad other people see the fallacy in this logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Why do xtians think they can use the bible as proof of itself? This paper was peppered with verses showing how the bible presents evidence for belief in itself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Highvoltage, what seems to me to be important... is the message, the principles for developing a happier, peaceful state of 'being'. If one 'considers' these resources in the bible... and finds that they do work... then there can be an accumulating faith in its tried and tested teachings. Perhaps for some people this happens, and obviously in others it doesn't. IMHO, it doesn't make anyone right or wrong... nor better or worse... just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killa_chuck Posted August 10, 2005 Author Share Posted August 10, 2005 I just did a tiny bit of sleuthing via Google and I found the guy who sent me the paper here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts