Question For The Christians

[bdp]

I don't think that I could be qualified as a Habermas bot. He's way smarter than me.

 

LNC

If I were you, I wouldn't let too many people, who have ever read anything this fool has written, know that he is smarter than me.

I think it was Habermas who came up with the "minimalist" argument for the historical Jesus. If I remember right, it's the idea that since the majority (70%?) of the scholars believe Jesus was historical (or certain aspects of some of the key events) therefore it must be true. (I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.)

 

Habermas means minimal facts and multiple attestation - 'multiple attestation' meaning multiple books of the bible. 'Minimal facts' are things that are common to all four gospels; Habermas doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that the 'gospels' don't meet accepted requirements for historical documents and that nothing contained in them is supported anywhere else in contemporary literature.

[Ouroboros]

I think it was Habermas who came up with the "minimalist" argument for the historical Jesus. If I remember right, it's the idea that since the majority (70%?) of the scholars believe Jesus was historical (or certain aspects of some of the key events) therefore it must be true. (I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.)

Doesn't that count as a appeal to consensus?

or ad populum (or ad populi, but I think populum might be the right one).

 

All depending on if I remember Habermas's argument correct.

 

Imagine if it was used as an argument for Evolution? I think pretty much 100% of biological anthropologists are certain that Evolution is a fact.

[Ouroboros]

Habermas means minimal facts and multiple attestation - 'multiple attestation' meaning multiple books of the bible. 'Minimal facts' are things that are common to all four gospels; Habermas doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that the 'gospels' don't meet accepted requirements for historical documents and that nothing contained in them is supported anywhere else in contemporary literature.

Ah. Minimal facts, that's what he called it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically there are like 7 "facts" that a majority of the scholars agree to be real historical events, and that's the basic for his argument that they must be true.

[Phanta]

 

You continue to make fantasy-laden claims that contradicts reality, which you can NOT back up – complete blatherskite that only exists in the confines of your stunted mind. You are NOT deserving of respect because you are a deranged christian lunatic asshole, who makes shit up and passes it off as holy writ from gods mind to yours.

 

--S.

 

You better hope that you are right.

 

Threats. Nice. Reminds me of home.

 

P

[bdp]

7 or 12 or something, depending on his mood. They're all within the gospels so I fail to see how they can possibly be historical facts.

[Mister Pappy]

Habermas doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that the 'gospels' don't meet accepted requirements for historical documents and that nothing contained in them is supported anywhere else in contemporary literature.

He has virtually no credibility among scholars but has mass appeal with the fundies - enough said?

[Ouroboros]

7 or 12 or something, depending on his mood. They're all within the gospels so I fail to see how they can possibly be historical facts.

Right. But I distinctly remember that he incorporated the belief of the scholars in there somehow. That's what got my attention to the fallacy. But of course, maybe I totally misunderstood it, and it was a while ago (and I don't care much anymore either ).

[Ouroboros]

He has virtually no credibility among scholars but has mass appeal with the fundys - enough said?

Really? That's the first time I hear that. I thought he was pretty big in the apologist camp.

[bdp]

7 or 12 or something, depending on his mood. They're all within the gospels so I fail to see how they can possibly be historical facts.

Right. But I distinctly remember that he incorporated the belief of the scholars in there somehow. That's what got my attention to the fallacy. But of course, maybe I totally misunderstood it, and it was a while ago (and I don't care much anymore either ).

 

Yes, he touts 'scholars' but they're all Xtian scholars, and mostly fundies.

[Mister Pappy]

He has virtually no credibility among scholars but has mass appeal with the fundys - enough said?

Really? That's the first time I hear that. I thought he was pretty big in the apologist camp.

His die-hard defense of the resurrection of Christ, by asserting such things as "the changed lives of the disciples after the story floated" as good evidence, has tainted his reputation as a serious thinker.

[Guest end3]

You better hope that you are right.

Because your God is going to body-slam his ass if he isn't? sounds reasonable...

 

I just don't hold "reasonable" as a goal Pappy.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, he touts 'scholars' but they're all Xtian scholars, and mostly fundies.

Maybe. I think he (or someone else) did a study on the percentage of the supporting scholars, and it was only like 70% that supported the idea of all the minimal facts being actual historical events. Maybe the 70% were the fundies, and the 30% were the liberal scholars.

 

Anyway, with the same argument, Habermas and any Habermas-bot must confess that Evolution is true. There's no debate there. If 70% is enough to make the resurrection true, then 100% of bio anthropologists is rather overwhelming. But they wouldn't, would they?

[Ouroboros]

His die-hard defense of the resurrection of Christ, by asserting such things as "the changed lives of the disciples after the story floated" as good evidence, has tainted his reputation as a serious thinker.

Yeah, but you know, serious scholars are only evil atheist heretics.

[oddbird1963]

Yes, he touts 'scholars' but they're all Xtian scholars, and mostly fundies.

Maybe. I think he (or someone else) did a study on the percentage of the supporting scholars, and it was only like 70% that supported the idea of all the minimal facts being actual historical events. Maybe the 70% were the fundies, and the 30% were the liberal scholars.

 

Anyway, with the same argument, Habermas and any Habermas-bot must confess that Evolution is true. There's no debate there. If 70% is enough to make the resurrection true, then 100% of bio anthropologists is rather overwhelming. But they wouldn't, would they?

 

 

I think the discussion of Habermas' approach was taken from this blog:

http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/why-the-minimal-facts-model-is-unpersuasive/

 

He basically took the works of authors and data mined little nuggets that each of the authors in his half-assed meta-analysis might have considered historical, daisy chained them together and said "SEEEEE! 70% of scholars agree on the historicity of the main facts." Never mind the fact that many of the authors used didn't believe in the resurrection in the historic, literal sense.

[Sconnor]

 

You continue to make fantasy-laden claims that contradicts reality, which you can NOT back up – complete blatherskite that only exists in the confines of your stunted mind. You are NOT deserving of respect because you are a deranged christian lunatic asshole, who makes shit up and passes it off as holy writ from gods mind to yours.

 

--S.

 

You better hope that you are right.

 

Bawhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!

 

OoOoooOoOoOOoooooooooo – scary stuff children!

 

Fuck off you loony-tune christian. Remember – you have NO credibility. Your god-claims are unsubstantiated bullshit from a diseased mind.

 

Sooooooooo…………ergo – your inane threat is just as empty as your vacuous bullshit claims.

 

It is telling that you can NOT defend your position.

 

And what is even more telling; your idle threat is actually an admission from you – you are a spineless chicken-shit who is shackled by fear.

 

--S.

[bdp]

 

 

Hey Oddbird,

 

Has LNC addressed John 3:18 at post #66?

 

--S.

 

Just wanted to note that LNC was here and gone twice that I know of last night and STILL no answer to this.

[Crazy Donna]

 

 

Interestingly, in the preceding verse, the term used in that sentence is 'judge' as well. This means that belief in jesus apparently means you avoid being judged by god. But it says nothing about avoiding being condemned. So christians avoid being judged because they believe in jesus. They do not avoid being condemned.

 

I'm going to think about this a bit more and post later, as my academic bitch cortex is not currently fully engaged.

 

I did a study on it about a year ago. In some verses, these words are used 3 or 4 times together. The thing about the King James Bible is that it is this way for hundreds of words.

Did you do a study on it in real Greek or in an English translation? I wouldn't bother with a translation. If I wanted to know what the text actually said, I'd go back to the original language. Not the King James Version.

 

I think that if the writer of the book wanted to use 'judge' instead of 'condemn' he probably meant 'judge', not 'condemn'. Since they are two different words, with subtle differences in meaning, whoever wrote it probably went with whatever they thought was the most appropriate.

 

While the words might mean different things, ultimately the implication of both words is that the person to whome the action is being performed will ultimately be punished somehow. Judgement without follow through would be meaningless.

[Crazy Donna]

 

 

Hey Oddbird,

 

Has LNC addressed John 3:18 at post #66?

 

--S.

 

Hey Sconner,

 

Yeah I addressed the question ( though for LNC), and got some grumbling back with no real argument back and it got scoffed off into the trash with every other legitimate answer any Christian ever gives around here.

 

Judged, the word can mean judged. Let me give context. I saw my kids misbehaving and condemned them. I saw my kids misbehaving and judged them. Though those to words have different meanings in todays spectrum, they have a connection in which Oddbird noted. The thing is though that IF there is a part of the Bible that is controversial in grammar and one way reads eternal damnation, and the other 'possible' eternal damnation; that would suggest further context with the whole subject, topic.

 

So, it is established there is some wording issues, yet, this verse keeps getting brought up as 'the verse' that declares belief in Jesus or hell.

 

 

Really? No answer back? I said, basically, that there is no real distinction between "judge" and "condemn" in this context. Your distinctions between "judge" and "condemn" were made up out of your imagination. You have no Greek New Testament lexical support for your analogies or definitions.

 

The passage (John 3:18) indicates that the person who does not believe is already condemned.

 

kekritai is 3rd person, perfect tense , passive voice, indicative mood. This means that the "judgment" or "condemnation" has already taken place on the one who does not believe.

 

Given the context of John 3:16 - 3:18 (perish,judge/condemn, etc) there is no practical difference between "judge" or "condemn" here.

 

BAGD, page 452 takes this position.

Oft. the emphasis is unmistakeably laid upon that which follows the Divine Judge's verdict, upon the condemnation, or punishment: condemn, punish . . . J 3:17; cf. 18a, b . . ."

 

The lexicon notes that the use of "condemn/punish" in these texts is the opposite of "to save."

 

Now the whole point of the discussion about John 3:18 is to refute LNC's claims that the bible does not teach or indicate that a person is condemned for not believing in Christ. When John 3:18 was cited, he ignored the verse because it stated that a person is condemned BECAUSE they do not believe.

 

So, now that we have established that the underlying Greek text uses the verb krino in the sense of condemned/damned/under the sentence of eternal condemnation, then perhaps LNC will answer why he just chose to ignore a verse which clearly contradicts his statements.

 

Thank you for offering a response about John 3:18, but it is not a viable answer. I know you feel you gave a legitimate answer, Abiyoyo. While you are welcome to maintain that position, it really isn't legitimate. This is not one of those passages where the word usage is unclear or controversial.

I agree. Whatever difference there is between 'judge' and 'condemn' in this context, either word implies consequences. Judgement would be meaningless without consequences. What would be the point of someone being judged for their unbelief if that judgement carried no consequences?

 

You must admit, consequences are tied intimately to either word in the context in which it is used.

[deepblue]

According to LNC, Anne Frank didn't go to hell. According to Christianity, this is BS. LNC seems to think that the works of the law are good enough to "outweigh" Anne Frank's sinful actions.

 

Has LNC ever read the book of Romans?

 

"For no-one will be justified by the works of the Law, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin"

 

No-one is saved by the works of the law.

 

According to Christianity, Anne Frank is in hell.

 

Now, LNC, put that in your pipe and smoke it. And by the way, we still haven't heard your explanation of John 3:18

[Guest end3]

According to LNC, Anne Frank didn't go to hell. According to Christianity, this is BS. LNC seems to think that the works of the law are good enough to "outweigh" Anne Frank's sinful actions.

 

Has LNC ever read the book of Romans?

 

"For no-one will be justified by the works of the Law, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin"

 

No-one is saved by the works of the law.

 

According to Christianity, Anne Frank is in hell.

 

Now, LNC, put that in your pipe and smoke it. And by the way, we still haven't heard your explanation of John 3:18

 

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

[oddbird1963]

 

 

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

 

Yes. You can get a feel for her beliefs on google books.

[Ouroboros]

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

So it's only belief in God that's important then? Not Jesus specifically?

[Guest end3]

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

So it's only belief in God that's important then? Not Jesus specifically?

 

I don't know how God would handle this truthfully, her being a Jew, yet faithful. I revert back to the natural branches vs. the grafted branches explanation.....and that effectively God hardened Israel so that the Gentiles could come in. I am not sure if many theologians even have a definitive answer.

[lunaticheathen]

You better hope that you are right.

 

Dick.

That "wait till your father gets home" threat gets real fucking old.

[Crazy Donna]

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

So it's only belief in God that's important then? Not Jesus specifically?

 

I don't know how God would handle this truthfully, her being a Jew, yet faithful. I revert back to the natural branches vs. the grafted branches explanation.....and that effectively God hardened Israel so that the Gentiles could come in. I am not sure if many theologians even have a definitive answer.

I'm not writing this in an angry, hostile voice. Please don't take my post as a personal attack on you.

 

You actually DO know how god would handle this, but it makes you terribly uncomfortable. You want to believe that god is loving, but are having a hard time accepting that your god would burn someone in hell on the basis of a criterion as fickle as belief in jesus.

 

The definitive answer is that Anne Frank would burn in hell, because she is did not believe in jesus. The bible is pretty clear on that.

 

I used to be very disturbed by this too when I was a christian and had muslim friends. Knowing they loved god, but that they would burn in hell when they died, really undermined my concept of god as a loving being. You can invent all sorts of apologetics to try to circumvent what the bible says, but ultimately, you KNOW what the bible says on this issue, and you're just faced with a crisis. Belief that god is loving and good versus knowledge that god will burn people who love him because they don't believe in jesus.

 

If belief in god was the criterion, then muslims, followers of bahai, jews, and anyone else who believes in the monotheistic god of abraham would be saved. But christian practice and mainstream belief tells you otherwise. The criterion is belief in jesus, because jesus is supposedly the way to salvation. Nobody comes to the father but through him, right? You KNOW this, but you don't want to believe it and accept the moral consequences for it -- that the god you worship purports to be loving, but is quite content with millions failing his requirement (belief in jesus) and letting them burn for eternity in hell.

 

It was stuff like this that seriously undermined my concept of god as a loving being. Apparently he's loving, but his actions tell us otherwise. This is something that nudged me towards deconversion. I could not reconcile a loving god with the eternal torture of millions, many of whom loved him but simply followed a different code.

 

You can be honest with yourself, and with us, and just accept that your 'loving' god would do this horrible thing, or you can keep trying to dig up apologetics to help yourself sleep at night. But its only you that you're kidding. We've all seen this and realised that the apologetics are unsatisfying half answers for a big question you're not ready to ask yourself yet. "Why are you more moral, kind, and compassionate, than god?"