rameus v holding

[jasonlong]

Does anyone know what happened with this other than what's posted on theologyweb? I'm extremely disappointed that Rameus would challenge Holding, but spend time posting on various other forums. I know he says that he's busy with this and that, but why bother challenging people when you're not going to follow through? I've been very eager to see Rameus debate someone, as he appears to be greatly my superior in the field of bible errancy, but I've been disappointed twice (CIL and Turkel). Does anyone know a link of a one on one debate with Rameus?

[Matthew]

Does anyone know what happened with this other than what's posted on theologyweb?  I'm extremely disappointed that Rameus would challenge Holding, but spend time posting on various other forums.  I know he says that he's busy with this and that, but why bother challenging people when you're not going to follow through?  I've been very eager to see Rameus debate someone, as he appears to be greatly my superior in the field of bible errancy, but I've been disappointed twice (CIL and Turkel).  Does anyone know a link of a one on one debate with Rameus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Rameus decided that he should spend more time in school with his graduate studies. Why he decided to open up a debate with Turkel, I am not sure, but I avoid debates for that very reason. It's not cowardice on my part but sheer time constraints. Even if I thought I knew my stuff forwards and backwards, chances are that I wouldn't find all that much time to commit myself to a debate.

 

Matthew

[Reach]

...and sometimes we simply bite off more than we can chew...

 

Jason, how are things going with your book and marketing? Knowing your target audience was doubting Christians, have you had any good feedback from any of them?

[Francois Tremblay]

I don't think anyone should have any debate that has to do with the Bible. Debating Bible theology only makes them think their issues are worthy of debate. You don't debate people who worship fairy tales, you step away from them veeeery sloooowly.

[Kryten]

I don't think anyone should have any debate that has to do with the Bible. Debating Bible theology only makes them think their issues are worthy of debate. You don't debate people who worship fairy tales, you step away from them veeeery sloooowly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I respectfully disagree. If no one challenges them they take THAT as confirmation that they are right. They think they have such a strong position, and logic and evidence is on their side, that no one DARES challenge them.

 

On this debate though, it should be easy to defeat Turkel's contention that the writings of Josephus (Jewish historian) and Tacitus (Roman historian) prove the existance of an actual Jesus. Neither of them were even BORN until after Jesus supposedly died. Josephus in 37CE and Tacitus around 56CE. Anything they wrote would be hearsay and NOT eyewitness (or contemporary) accounts. Not to mention Josephus' work was amended by the church over the first few centuries to include things about Jesus that he OBVIOUSLY didn't originally write. But that's beside the point.

[Francois Tremblay]

I respectfully disagree.  If no one challenges them they take THAT as confirmation that they are right.

 

I didn't say anything about the believer himself. The believer will believe that he is right regardless of observed facts : that is what a believer is. I am, of course, talking about the observers, the people for the sake of whom we actually debate. THEY are the ones to whom a debate lends credence to both positions.

 

 

On this debate though, it should be easy to defeat Turkel's contention that the writings of Josephus (Jewish historian) and Tacitus (Roman historian) prove the existance of an actual Jesus.  Neither of them were even BORN until after Jesus supposedly died.  Josephus in 37CE and Tacitus around 56CE.  Anything they wrote would be hearsay and NOT eyewitness (or contemporary) accounts. Not to mention Josephus' work was amended by the church over the first few centuries to include things about Jesus that he OBVIOUSLY didn't originally write. But that's beside the point.

 

You are referring to logical, scientific facts. Logical, scientific facts have strictly nothing to do with the subjectivity of the believer. The mind of a Christian sees a completely different world than yours - in that world, science is meaningless and random, and revelation trumps facts. The most prestigious Christian theologian - William Craig - publically said that he would still believe in "Jesus"' resurrection even if he went back in time and saw it didn't happen, because the Holy Ghost told him it did. Try cornering a whacko like that with facts.

[Kryten]

I didn't say anything about the believer himself. The believer will believe that he is right regardless of observed facts : that is what a believer is. I am, of course, talking about the observers, the people for the sake of whom we actually debate. THEY are the ones to whom a debate lends credence to both positions.

You are referring to logical, scientific facts. Logical, scientific facts have strictly nothing to do with the subjectivity of the believer. The mind of a Christian sees a completely different world than yours - in that world, science is meaningless and random, and revelation trumps facts. The most prestigious Christian theologian - William Craig - publically said that he would still believe in "Jesus"' resurrection even if he went back in time and saw it didn't happen, because the Holy Ghost told him it did. Try cornering a whacko like that with facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point. Christians can have such an emotional commitment to their faith that they MUST believe it at any cost. The FOUNDATION of their faith is to BELIEVE in Jesus and the Bible. To believe means to accept on faith, and to question means to doubt, which is a sign of disbelief and rebellion. They must force themselves to accept what the bible or church says they agree with, and reject anything contrary. Their eternal soul is on the line. Plus if they go down the road of logic and critical thinking, they may abandon their faith and upset their social and/or family life. That's a lot to give up for many. It's much easier just to believe and ignore actual facts, evidence, and reason.

[jasonlong]

...and sometimes we simply bite off more than we can chew...   

 

Jason, how are things going with your book and marketing? Knowing your target audience was doubting Christians, have you had any good feedback from any of them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just received the sales report for February, and without going into specific sales details, let's just say that I'm extremely disappointed. I know that putting the text online costs sales, but I really thought more copies would move. As for advertising, it's nearly impossible to find a relevant site that allows paid banner placements. The best I've found so far is google's adwords. My site comes up in the paid section when people type "is god real" "is the bible true" or "who wrote the bible." I think this will catch some curious people who are actually having doubts. It's a shame that sites like "christian answers" and "answers in genesis" pop up as well. I've added a FAQ page to the site with links to write reviews for the major online booksellers, so I'm hoping that will generate interest.

 

As for feedback, I'd say 100% of it comes from those who have already deconverted. I'm actually not in a position to do a lot of advertising right now. I'm finally taking my boards in June, so I'm reviewing a lot for that right now. I have to go to Ohio in May to find a house, work out a deal with that, get a loan for a home, pack up my stuff here, do all the necessary things to accomplish a move in this complicated modern world, interview for jobs, decide on a job, and settle into the new home/job, etc.

 

 

I don't think anyone should have any debate that has to do with the Bible. Debating Bible theology only makes them think their issues are worthy of debate. You don't debate people who worship fairy tales, you step away from them veeeery sloooowly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Whenever I'm in a debate, I always point out three things:

1. I would feel just as challenged to debate a third grader who believe in a flat earth

2. If my opponent's parents were in religion X, he'd be just as sure about X

3. I wouldn't be wasting my time with this if billions of people weren't conditioned to believe this nonsense.

 

On this debate though, it should be easy to defeat Turkel's contention that the writings of Josephus (Jewish historian) and Tacitus (Roman historian) prove the existance of an actual Jesus.  Neither of them were even BORN until after Jesus supposedly died.  Josephus in 37CE and Tacitus around 56CE.  Anything they wrote would be hearsay and NOT eyewitness (or contemporary) accounts. Not to mention Josephus' work was amended by the church over the first few centuries to include things about Jesus that he OBVIOUSLY didn't originally write. But that's beside the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly. If I was debating Holding/Turkel, I wouldn't even worry about the authenticity of the passages. Stating that the passages prove a historical Jesus is ten times the stretch of stating that they are original. The passages could be lies, myths, urban legends, etc. The trouble with Holding/Turkel is that he has so much erroneous BS memorized, it's tough to deal with him.