Christian Apologetics

Handsome Bob

I brought this up in Christianity and I am interested to hear the views of A&A on Christian Apologetics. Are any of you familiar with it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuczs8BJE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBBzTMSUC0

ChocolateSauce

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I brought this up in Christianity and I am interested to hear the views of A&A on Christian Apologetics. Are any of you familiar with it?

Well I hate to sound like I'm spouting the usual rabble, but....rabble rabble rabble!

But seriously, the resurrection, like the man says, is copied from earlier beliefs. It is also highly improbable. I didn't believe this story when I was a Christian, let alone now. I think Christian apologetics range from the very stupid to the very thoughtful but are, ultimately, incorrect.

Handsome Bob

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I hate to sound like I'm spouting the usual rabble, but....rabble rabble rabble!

But seriously, the resurrection, like the man says, is copied from earlier beliefs. It is also highly improbable. I didn't believe this story when I was a Christian, let alone now.

Gary Habermas pointed out there was no actual resurrection in the early beliefs that the skeptic mentioned.

Here's more on his work

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

ChocolateSauce

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Gary Habermas pointed out there was no actual resurrection in the early beliefs that the skeptic mentioned.

Here's more on his work

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

He's from Liberty University, easily one of the most laughable "educational" institutions in the world. He should get associated with a proper university (and if his degree or degrees are from there, he should get a degree worth the paper it is printed on).

But that is beside the point....if the above is true, then that is evidence that one of the core tenants of Christianity is false. I don't think a piece of evidence which seriously damages the credibility of its claims will be welcomed.

Fanny Cradock

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

He's from Liberty University, easily one of the most laughable "educational" institutions in the world. He should get associated with a proper university (and if his degree or degrees are from there, he should get a degree worth the paper it is printed on).

But that is beside the point....if the above is true, then that is evidence that one of the core tenants of Christianity is false. I don't think a piece of evidence which seriously damages the credibility of its claims will be welcomed.

Gotta love the intellectual snobbery. A quick read of his bio states that he also gained a Ph D from Michigan State and a Masters from University Detroit. Of course, even if the institution can not be so easily dismissed, the usual course of such intellectual snobbery leads one to pooh-pooh the very qualifications gained simply because of the field of study.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Gotta love the intellectual snobbery. A quick read of his bio states that he also gained a Ph D from Michigan State and a Masters from University Detroit. Of course, even if the institution can not be so easily dismissed, the usual course of such intellectual snobbery leads one to pooh-pooh the very qualifications gained simply because of the field of study.

Are you implying that we're not giving him a fair chance?

OP what is that show itself about? I watched the two videos and the other guy seemed like he was in from the street i.e I felt he was pwned by Habermas. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

He's from Liberty University, easily one of the most laughable "educational" institutions in the world.

Liberty University, run by Jerry Falwell up until his death, has provided Ken Ham, the world's most famous creationist who isn't in jail for fraud, with not one, but two honorary "doctorates".

Nothing further needs to be said about the educational standards at Liberty University.

pH

It's just laughable to say that there's no evidence that Egyptians believed that Osiris was raised from the dead, and that somehow it was "retrofitted" to the Osiris myth after it really happened to Jesus.

Scholars such as E.A. Wallis Budge have suggested possible connections or parallels of Osiris' resurrection story with those found in Christianity: "The Egyptians of every period in which they are known to us believed that Osiris was of divine origin, that he suffered death and mutilation at the hands of the powers of evil, that after a great struggle with these powers he rose again, that he became henceforth the king of the underworld and judge of the dead, and that because he had conquered death the righteous also might conquer death...In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child."[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

Handsome Bob

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are you implying that we're not giving him a fair chance?

OP what is that show itself about? I watched the two videos and the other guy seemed like he was in from the street i.e I felt he was pwned by Habermas. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

Sorry yeah the skeptic was not great at arguing his case. It was the only video I could find that best sums up Habermas's field of study; i.e. the Resurrection.

pH

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It was the only video I could find that best sums up Habermas's field of study; i.e. the Resurrection.

Don't confuse what he's doing with study and genuine academic research. He starts with his set of known Christian truths and then gathers evidence that supports his position, discarding that which doesn't.

Handsome Bob

pH wrote: »

Don't confuse what he's doing with study and genuine academic research. He starts with his set of known Christian truths and then gathers evidence that supports his position, discarding that which doesn't.

That's why it's called The Minimal Facts Approach; 5% is all he has to work with to argue his case.:pac: It's a decent argument but he loses it for me when he talks of the apostles willing to die for what they were convinced the saw; Jesus resurrected. I don't know the circumstances of them being put to death.

CerebralCortex

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's why it's called The Minimal Facts Approach; 5% is all he has to work with to argue his case.:pac: It's a decent argument but he loses it for me when he talks of the apostles willing to die for what they were convinced the saw; Jesus resurrected. I don't know the circumstances of them being put to death.

That argument always reminds me of this argument for some reason.

ChocolateSauce

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Gotta love the intellectual snobbery. A quick read of his bio states that he also gained a Ph D from Michigan State and a Masters from University Detroit. Of course, even if the institution can not be so easily dismissed, the usual course of such intellectual snobbery leads one to pooh-pooh the very qualifications gained simply because of the field of study.

Except I didn't assume he got them there and the whole post was "if he is affliated". As my dinner was cooling I didn't have the time to read a bio, and also I said "even if, it's beside the point." I stand by my criticism of the university however.

I also reject your suggestion that I would dismiss out of hand a hard earned degree from a reputable university, even it it is a field I wouldn't find the most stimulating.

stevencarrwork

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's why it's called The Minimal Facts Approach; 5% is all he has to work with to argue his case.:pac: It's a decent argument but he loses it for me when he talks of the apostles willing to die for what they were convinced the saw; Jesus resurrected. I don't know the circumstances of them being put to death.

Habermas 'minimum facts' approach.

Right from the start, Habermas tries to use 'minimum' facts, instead of *all* the facts.

His facts aren't really facts, but let us suppose that they were facts?

How does his approach differ from that of Holocaust-deniers who also pick and choose their facts?

They also love to use minimum facts, rather than all the facts.


It is a fact that no document signed or dictated by Hitler said to liqudate Jews in Europe in death camps.

It is a fact that 'Gas chamber 1' Auschwitz was an air raid shelter in 1944 and the building seen today dates largely from 1948.

These are undisputed facts. Even Wikipedia agrees these are facts, down to the building being an air-raid shelter in 1944.

Now using Habermas 'minimal facts' methodology, how can we best explain these undisputed facts?

Remember, we are only allowed to use these minimal facts, which nobody disputes, because we are using Habermas's methods.
We are also not allowed to use any other facts, such as the testimony of the commander of Auschwitz, because we are using Habermas's methods.

So now let us use more facts, and real facts, rather than Habermas's 'facts'.

Paul could not produce one single piece of eyewitness testimony as to what a resurrected body was like, even though the Gospel alleged that his Lord and Saviour had taught that a resurrected body was supposed to be made of flesh and bone, could be touched, ate, still had wounds etc.

The Gospels were written after Paul, and these stories did not exist when Paul was writing to people to tell them what a resurrected body was like.

Or else he would have used them, the way modern Christians do.


The earliest Christians believed Jesus was still alive, but that his body had been left behind.

The earliest reference to the resurrection is in 1 Cor. 15. There we learn that the Corinthians accepted the resurrection of Jesus, but still disbelieved that a dead body could rise.

This is impossible to explain, if they had been taught that Jesus dead body had risen. After all, modern Christians have no problem with the idea that God can raise dead bodies, because they have heard stories of how the body of Jesus was raised.

The Corinthians worry is easy to explain if they believed that Jesus was a god. Jesus had been a spirit before he became a human , and became a spirit again after he died. Gods can do that. However, we are not gods, and so the Corinthians wondered how we could follow Jesus , when our bodies , like the body of Jesus, would stay in the ground.

The Corinthians knew that God could breathe life into dead matter. God had breathed life into clay and created Adam as a living person. So if they believed God could make dead matter live, why did they believe God would choose not to make their dead bodies alive?

They must have had good evidence that God had not made dead matter alive in the case of the resurrection. They must have had good evidence that the dead body of Jesus had not been made alive. Only this explains their wondering how they would be resurrected, as it appeared to them that God did not want to make dead bodies live again.

So far this is speculation, although reasonable speculation. If the Corinthians believed God could make dead matter live, and had heard stories of the dead bodies of Jesus, Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus etc, being made alive, how could they doubt that God would make their dead bodies live again? Answer. They had not heard these stories, and had good evidence that a resurrection did *not* involve a dead body being made alive.

We have to turn to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul answers the objections of the Corinthians.

Paul calls the Corinthians idiots for wondering how dead bodies would be raised. And he immediately stresses that dead bodies are dead. ‘You fools! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed.’

If Paul thought the Corinthians were idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, when it was child’s play for God to raise dead bodies, he would have told them so. He could have used such passages as Ezekiel 37, or talked about how God breathed life into dead matter to make Adam.

Instead, he thinks the Corinthians are idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, as they have totally missed the point about a resurrection.

Dead bodies will not be raised. Instead, we will get a new body, made of spirit.

The Corinthians were as idiotic for wondering how dead bodies would be raised in the resurrection, as somebody would be idiotic for wondering whether we still have to take our library books back after the resurrection.

Such questions were irrelevant, which is why Paul never answers the questions of how corpses could get back missing limbs, or how a corpse destroyed by fire could be reconstituted from smoke and ash etc.

Paul goes so far as to contrast , Adam, with Jesus. ‘The first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’

The Corinthians were idiots for not realising that we would follow Jesus and leave our dead bodies behind. We are made from the dust of the earth, but like the resurrected Jesus, we will be made from heavenly material.


The whole chapter only makes sense when we take seriously Paul’s view that it is idiotic to wonder how a dead body could be raised. It won’t be raised. It is a non-problem. Paul says clearly ‘You do not plant the body that will be’, and talks about different kinds of bodies. Paul says there is first the natural body and then the spiritual body. The Corinthians presently have their natural bodies, and then they will have spiritual bodies.

Here is an analogy for how Paul writes. If you wonder how a magician can produce an egg from your ear, after you have seen him crack the egg open, then you are an idiot for not realising that there are two eggs. Paul writes the same way.

Why wonder how a dead body can be transformed into a resurrected body, when there are two bodies? In 1 Cor. 15, Paul stresses how there are different bodies made of different materials. Why stress that there are different bodies, if he is trying to tell us how the magician put the egg back together again?

English translations of 1 Corinthians 15 often mask Paul’s idea that after our natural body has died, we will get a body made of spirit. Just like Jesus, we will become ‘a life-giving spirit.’ People of that time believed that celestial things were made of entirely different substances to earthly things. Paul shares that view and emphasises it in 1 Corinthians 15. This makes no sense if he is supposedly teaching the Corinthains that their resurrected bodies would be made from flesh and blood, which is what the Gospels claim Jesus resurrected body was made of.

It does make sense if Paul is teaching that the resurrected body would not be made from the flesh and blood of our earthly bodies.

Paul is very explicit in 2 Corinthians 5 that we will leave this present body behind and receive a heavenly body. A new body to replace the old body. He often uses a clothing analogy. At the resurrection we will get a new set of clothes.

This means that the old set of clothes will be discarded.

The earliest reference to the resurrection, Paul’s writings, clearly indicate that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus flesh and blood body rose from the grave.

barfizz

For a better understanding of where the ressurection ideas have come from, see the following gods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3i6UwVkP6M&eurl=http://confederator.org/2008/11/09/resurrection-gods-jesus-is-the-sun/&feature=player_embedded

barfizz

Also check out the Roman god Mithra who was born about 1300 BC in Persia and was still very popular in Rome up until the 4th Centuary AD when it was banned by the new Christian religion, Notice what they stole...

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Tim Robbins

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I brought this up in Christianity and I am interested to hear the views of A&A on Christian Apologetics. Are any of you familiar with it?

That's Lee Strobel. A very skilled sophist. He makes out as if his been very objective, but he's been anything but.

Fanny Cradock

barfizz wrote: »

Also check out the Roman god Mithra who was born about 1300 BC in Persia and was still very popular in Rome up until the 4th Centuary AD when it was banned by the new Christian religion, Notice what they stole...

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Countless times have these been mentioned on the Christianity forum. And countless times have they been refuted. Like your post, the claims are inevitably just copied and pasted from other websites - like some sort of viral email.

For instance, nowhere in the Bible is the date of Jesus' birth mentioned. The 25th of December is merely a convention stretching back to the 4th Century and is completely ex-biblical in its origin. Mithra emerged as a fully formed adult from a rock, not a virgin. I believe that the fist references to the shepherds appear approximately 100 years after the Gospels.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's Lee Strobel. A very skilled sophist. He makes out as if his been very objective, but he's been anything but.

While I agree that The Case for Christ is not entirely objective - he was initially an unbeliever, and through his investigation, he became a believer. Any lack of objectivity arises because he is writing the book after this epiphany. It usually in the form of him saying something like: 'that made sense to me' or 'I couldn't disagree with that' after receiving a answer from an expert. However, the questions he asks are done so in an honest manner. Whatever you make of the answers he receives is an entirely personal matter.

The sophistry that Tim accuses Strobel of is a claim that is generally levelled at Christian authors. This vigilance extends to Tim's tireless patrolling for crimes against logic on the Christianity forum. Why, the merest mention of C.S. Lewis will inevitably see a post from Tim accusing Lewis of all manner of logical fallacies.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I agree that The Case for Christ is not entirely objective - he was initially an unbeliever, and through his investigation, he became a believer.

Which is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. All that matters is the validity of his arguments.

The sophistry that Tim accuses Strobel of is a claim that is generally levelled at Christian authors. This vigilance extends to Tim's tireless patrolling for crimes against logic on the Christianity forum. Why, the merest mention of C.S. Lewis will inevitably see a post from Tim accusing Lewis of all manner of logical fallacies.

It doesn't matter who I am, who they are or who used to be what. Believe it or not. When you desconstruct these arguments they are shown for the sophistry that they are. Any intelligent person who values truth will deconstruct arguments and examine them, so what's the problem Fanny?

I don't think the audience of Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis have much of a clue about logic so to them the arguments sound reasonable. I just watched a youtube of Lee Strobel, explaining to his audience what a prime number is ffs? In Europe, a nine year old should know what a prime number is.

On another occasion, he thinks DNA is incredibly efficient. If he new anything at all about DNA, he'd know there's a huge amount of junk in DNA that is redundant.

Any intelligent person should be able to cut through Lewis or Strobel.
If you want a challenge, check out Fr. Peter McVerry. Instead of engaging in stupid sophistry he gets up of his backside and lives his life helping people. Not for money, not for greed but because of his Christian faith which he doesn't even bother forcing on people.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Which is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. All that matters is the validity of his arguments.

I would argue that it is meaningful; it's what drove him to write the book that we are discussing. But, yes, the heart of the matter rests with validity of his arguments.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It doesn't matter who I am, who they are or who used to be what. Believe it or not. When you desconstruct these arguments they are shown for the sophistry that they are. Any intelligent person who values truth will deconstruct arguments and examine them, so what's the problem Fanny?

It was unfair of me to make this personal, Tim. I apologise for this.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On another occasion, he thinks DNA is incredibly efficient. If he new anything at all about DNA, he'd know there's a huge amount of junk in DNA that is redundant.

It's possible, like all of us, that he should stay away from pursuing certain arguments - we all have our areas of knowledge. However, not one to take my own advice, I have heard that term 'junk' in junk DNA is really a misnomer. Simply because the function of the DNA is not yet known, it doesn't seem appropriate to consider it redundant, and there seems to be a growing acceptance that this is the case. It's like saying that the 'spare' nuts and bolts that are left over after assembling a piece of Ikea furniture are 'junk'. When the reality is that they are essential in holding the stylish piece of crap together.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would argue that it is meaningful; it's what drove him to write the book that we are discussing. But, yes, the heart of the matter rests with validity of his arguments.

You believe that? Me thinks it was the dollar that drove him to write those books. Me believes the dollar drives most of those "apologetics". Again, I refer you to Fr. Peter. Imagine the amount of money his brain could make selling books and he chooses to put all his time and energy into helping people.
This is agape.

It's possible, like all of us, that he should stay away from pursuing certain arguments - we all have our areas of knowledge.

Any intelligent person, should research their opinions. This is why you don't hear Jesuits or Rowan Williams make wacky arguments the wacky Evangelicals make.

However, not one to take my own advice, I have heard that term 'junk' in junk DNA is really a misnomer.

There's tonnes of DNA that is just junk. Not in used in creating amino acids to create cells. So what else could its function be?

Besides, my point was that Stroble was trying to make an argument for a creater since DNA was so efficient. He clearly doesn't understand DNA nor does his audience. So to an atheist, it just looks like a case of 'ignorance is bliss' and it's hard to take any of this seriously.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You believe that? Me thinks it was the dollar that drove him to write those books. Me believes the dollar drives most of those "apologetics". Again, I refer you to Fr. Peter. Imagine the amount of money his brain could make selling books and he chooses to put all his time and energy into helping people.
This is agape.

Lamentably, as I don't have your ability to read minds, it would be foolish of me to defend the motives of these Christians you speak of. Also, shame on these apologists for daring to make money from their books!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's tonnes of DNA that is just junk. Not in used in creating amino acids to create cells. So what else could its function be?

I'm no scientist, but your definition of there being 'tonnes of DNA that is just junk' doesn't sound very exacting. Also, when junk DNA clearly isn't useless there is no point in pressing your opinion that it is. Would this count as your Strobel of the gaps? Anyway, if you really want to know what else this 'junk' could do, I'm not the man to ask.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145056.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3703935.stm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/afst-d110408.php

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Besides, my point was that Stroble was trying to make an argument for a creater since DNA was so efficient. He clearly doesn't understand DNA nor does his audience. So to an atheist, it just looks like a case of 'ignorance is bliss' and it's hard to take any of this seriously.

I'm sorry, Tim, but given that I've already admitted that I don't posses precognitive ability, you must forgive me for not being able to see the real meaning of your posts when you don't type it. Also, because of this deficiency, be warned that I may experience shock and bewilderment when I arrive at the park only to find the goal post have been shifted.

barfizz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Countless times have these been mentioned on the Christianity forum. And countless times have they been refuted. Like your post, the claims are inevitably just copied and pasted from other websites - like some sort of viral email.

For instance, nowhere in the Bible is the date of Jesus' birth mentioned. The 25th of December is merely a convention stretching back to the 4th Century and is completely ex-biblical in its origin. Mithra emerged as a fully formed adult from a rock, not a virgin. I believe that the fist references to the shepherds appear approximately 100 years after the Gospels.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Fanny you are missing the point, Christianity is just a pick and choose collection of old myths repackaged and sold as new.

When are you going to wake up and realise that you are just wasting your time/life arguing (as fact) about a group of old stories thrown together to give people direction in there life.

The Old Testament comes from old oral traditions and was written for a people that were just coming out of the caves and beginning to come to terms with a society that was larger than the traditional family group they were used to. The progression from a nomadic to a agricultural society was a big leap (and I’m sure very scary). This also enabled them time to begin to study and witness what was around them, so between the awe of the planet we live on and the need for a set of guidelines to help them to live in this new larger society they developed stories that would give them some sense of place that was easy and simple for their primitive mind. Hence the old vengeful God; always watching them and ready to punish them severely for the smallest crime.

The new testament was a collection of the more modern thinking of that time, people/society had evolved into a more caring and nurturing society and there was a need for this to be reflected in a new set of guidelines, hence people like Paul took from his experience of Mithras in Tarsus (centre of the Mithras religion), took a bit of that, picked a bit of Horus, Apollo etc.. And came up with what he believed to be a collection of the best bits.

Unfortunately for you that’s all that happened, so yes I agree, there was no virgin birth, there was no birthday on Dec 25th, there was no resurrection for any of them.

All we have are a collection of stories that aim to provide a set of moral guidelines to help people live a better life but unfortunately some people for generations since have decided to take these stories as fact.

And before you go on about Jesus being a real person, lets not bother getting into the argument about there being no such person. I have my opinion based on the lack of him even being mentioned once in contemporary records, and you are going to say the bible is proof, ya da, ya da, ya…

Fanny Cradock

barfizz wrote: »

Fanny you are missing the point, Christianity is just a pick and choose collection of old myths repackaged and sold as new.

When are you going to wake up and realise that you are just wasting your time/life arguing (as fact) about a group of old stories thrown together to give people direction in there life.

The Old Testament comes from old oral traditions and was written for a people that were just coming out of the caves and beginning to come to terms with a society that was larger than the traditional family group they were used to. The progression from a nomadic to a agricultural society was a big leap (and I’m sure very scary). This also enabled them time to begin to study and witness what was around them, so between the awe of the planet we live on and the need for a set of guidelines to help them to live in this new larger society they developed stories that would give them some sense of place that was easy and simple for their primitive mind. Hence the old vengeful God; always watching them and ready to punish them severely for the smallest crime.

The new testament was a collection of the more modern thinking of that time, people/society had evolved into a more caring and nurturing society and there was a need for this to be reflected in a new set of guidelines, hence people like Paul took from his experience of Mithras in Tarsus (centre of the Mithras religion), took a bit of that, picked a bit of Horus, Apollo etc.. And came up with what he believed to be a collection of the best bits.

Unfortunately for you that’s all that happened, so yes I agree, there was no virgin birth, there was no birthday on Dec 25th, there was no resurrection for any of them.

All we have are a collection of stories that aim to provide a set of moral guidelines to help people live a better life but unfortunately some people for generations since have decided to take these stories as fact.

And before you go on about Jesus being a real person, lets not bother getting into the argument about there being no such person. I have my opinion based on the lack of him even being mentioned once in contemporary records, and you are going to say the bible is proof, ya da, ya da, ya…

Great, you managed to type all that and accuse me of missing the point.

You go on to make specific claims regarding the similarities between Jesus and Mithra. The upshot of your argument is that Christianity is just a heterogeneous repackaging of a number religions. OK?

Well, off the top of my head, I've refuted a few choice points from your copy and paste job and also provided a link that goes on to dismantle all 16 claims in detail. None of which you have bothered to counter-challenge, btw. (The same claims have been made of Horus on the Christianity forum. They, too, have been refuted. Do a search if you are interested.)

However, in providing evidence that unambiguously oppose your claims - or despite it - I somehow have missed the point that Jesus is just a repackaged version of Mithra (as you have only laid specific claims to this end it is the only charge I can answer), right

But you are correct, I probably am wasting my time arguing with you - neither of us are going to agree. As I'm ducking out now, the floor is all yours!

P.S. if you want to believe that there was no Jesus - dismissing documents like the bible in the process - then you best begin to re-evaluate who you believe existed in antiquity.

barfizz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Great, you managed to type all that and accuse me of missing the point.

Yes it took ages...:)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You go on to make specific claims regarding the similarities between Jesus and Mithra. The upshot of your argument is that Christianity is just a heterogeneous repackaging of a number religions. OK?

Yes to provide a point about christ not being original in regards to the ressurection. did you not get that ???

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, off the top of my head, I've refuted a few choice points from your copy and paste job and also provided a link that goes on to dismantle all 16 claims in detail. None of which you have bothered to counter-challenge, btw. (The same claims have been made of Horus on the Christianity forum. They, too, have been refuted. Do a search if you are interested.)

Well actually only the one, the Virgin birth,
The point about Dec 25 if you read my post was that it was taken from the Mithra religion (and others) i never said it was real that’s the point

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, in providing evidence that unambiguously oppose your claims - or despite it - I somehow have missed the point that Jesus is just a repackaged version of Mithra (as you have only laid specific claims to this end it is the only charge I can answer), right

The link you provide is from a christian site, i don't count it as an independant opinion.
Paul, the founder of the Christian church was from Tarsus where the Mithra religion was predominant (that’s why I chose it as an example) that is why there are so many similarities. He chose the bit that would fit into a good story.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But you are correct, I probably am wasting my time arguing with you - neither of us are going to agree. As I'm ducking out now, the floor is all yours!

pity about that, i like to have honest, open, exchanges of opinion

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

P.S. if you want to believe that there was no Jesus - dismissing documents like the bible in the process - then you best begin to re-evaluate who you believe existed in antiquity.

I believe many people existed in antiquity or else there would be no one here, we all had to have ancestors. I don't believe that Mithra was a god either just another fable...

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lamentably, as I don't have your ability to read minds, it would be foolish of me to defend the motives of these Christians you speak of. Also, shame on these apologists for daring to make money from their books!

Now, now, Fanny - you just proferred a reason for his motivation. I hope you're not saying I can't do that.

Also, when junk DNA clearly isn't useless there is no point in pressing your opinion that it is.

Well how about you explain why junk DNA clearly isn't useless?
Are you saying that some parts of junk DNA may not be useless or all of it has a use?

Again, I bring you back to what Strobel was saying. He was saying DNA was exceptionally efficient. That would imply all of does something. Any redundancy would rebutt his claim. Does he have conclusive evidence all of it has a use? No.

I'm sorry, Tim, but given that I've already admitted that I don't posses precognitive ability, you must forgive me for not being able to see the real meaning of your posts when you don't type it. Also, because of this deficiency, be warned that I may experience shock and bewilderment when I arrive at the park only to find the goal post have been shifted.

Goalposts haven't shifted. So there's no need for that rhetoric. My point is the sophistry of apologetics is meaningless when you deconstruct and loook at their arguments logically. Are you seriously trying to suggest there's no sophistry with Strobel's DNA arguments? If not, what are you trying to do?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Now, now, Fanny - you just proferred a reason for his motivation. I hope you're not saying I can't do that.

Proffered a reason? I merely gave a brief outline of the thesis of Strobel's book - a non-believer embarks on the 'Case for Christ', finds most of the answers to his liking and later becomes a Christian. It's you who are concocting reasons beyond this for his motivation.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well how about you explain why junk DNA clearly isn't useless?
Are you saying that some parts of junk DNA may not be useless or all of it has a use?

I'm not a scientist, Tim. But I've already provided several links that discuss the usefulness of 'junk' DNA.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Again, I bring you back to what Strobel was saying. He was saying DNA was exceptionally efficient. That would imply all of does something. Any redundancy would rebutt his claim. Does he have conclusive evidence all of it has a use? No.

Can you think of any system that doesn't have waste? Maybe Strobel was being as loose in his use of the words 'incredibly efficient' as you are when you say there are 'tonnes of DNA that is just junk'. I'm not particularly interested in debating DNA with you. However, if you can think of a method that clearly surpasses DNA's ability to store genetic information in the long-term and amongst all known living organisms, well, you better pipe up and inform the scientific community.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Goalposts haven't shifted. So there's no need for that rhetoric. My point is the sophistry of apologetics is meaningless when you deconstruct and loook at their arguments logically. Are you seriously trying to suggest there's no sophistry with Strobel's DNA arguments? If not, what are you trying to do?

You take pedantically take umbrage to Strobel using the term 'efficient' in relation to DNA (again, I'm wondering what biological method has been more successful at passing along staggering amounts of genetic information over vast periods of time for all known living organisms, including the odd virus) and then dismiss him on this basis of this - a non-scientist using non-scientific terminology. Who is really the sophist hiding behind words like 'logic', Tim?*

*Hint: it's you

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Proffered a reason? I merely gave a brief outline of the thesis of Strobel's book - a non-believer embarks on the 'Case for Christ', finds most of the answers to his liking and later becomes a Christian. It's you who are concocting reasons beyond this for his motivation.

You said:
"it's what drove him to write the book that we are discussing."

I'm not a scientist, Tim. But I've already provided several links that discuss the usefulness of 'junk' DNA.
[/QUOTE
Is DNA unambiguosly efficient? No.

Can you think of any system that doesn't have waste? Maybe Strobel was being as loose in his use of the words 'incredibly efficient' as you are when you say there are 'tonnes of DNA that is just junk'. I'm not particularly interested in debating DNA with you. However, if you can think of a method that clearly surpasses DNA's ability to store genetic information in the long-term and amongst all known living organisms, well, you better pipe up and inform the scientific community.

He speaking scientific nonsense to people who were scientifically illiterate.
What's interesting is the techniques he uses to make his arguments sound impressive.

There are tonnes of way you could encode better than DNA. It's simple mathematics. Ever used winzip? That compresses information and hence stores it more efficiently.

A designer doesn't explain redundant DNA. Evolution does.

You take pedantically take umbrage to Strobel using the term 'efficient' in relation to DNA (again, I'm wondering what biological method has been more successful at passing along staggering amounts of genetic information over vast periods of time for all known living organisms, including the odd virus) and then dismiss him on this basis of this - a non-scientist using non-scientific terminology. Who is really the sophist hiding behind words like 'logic', Tim?*

*Hint: it's you

Efficient can be used in a scientifc context. DNA is just not efficient.

It doesn't matter if nothing in Biology is more efficient than DNA.

Stroble was arguing:
Premise: DNA is very efficient
Conclusion: There must be a designer.

The truth is:
1. DNA is not efficient. Any information storing mechanism that has a lot of redundancy is not efficient. This is basic engineering. A lot of the biology is not well engineered. The eye, for example is not well engineered. Evolution explains exactly why nature is not well engineered. A creater (unless he's a bad Engineer) does not.
2. Even if DNA was efficient that means absolutely nothing in deducing if there is a designer or not. Nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what words I am hiding behind?

Sonderval

Fanny, surely you cannot be so dismissive of the syncretism inherent in Christianity? - there is a non-trivial amount of plagarism going on there.

I am aware of more specific Mithras, Horus and Isis claims that are not mentioned in that list, I'll see if I can drag up some good references.

Fanny Cradock

Tim, I'm not interested in discussing the merrits of DNA with you. I have already provided evidence to the function of some of the 'junk' DNA that you otherwise dismiss as usless. Talk to somebody with a professed interest in genetics if you really want to know more.

As for the words you hide behind, well, it's more a set pattern whereby you accuse people of failing to adhere to logic and then go on to present a number of your 'logical' deductions.

These usually take the form of a list of possible reductions. The results of which are either:
1) People who agree with you are deemed to be logical.
2) People who disagree with your reasoning are deemed to illogical.

I don't believe we will ever find common ground on this matter. You are happy to pedanticly nit-pick at two words Strobel uses (brazenly questioning his intentions in the process) and yet see no irony when you continually use a throw away term like 'tonnes' in relation to DNA. Besides, I see that you are stuck in a near endless 'logical' loop of your own making.

I'm out, Tim. Your dogged determination has claimed yet another scalp.