If they had, you would have been able to show on this website what the alleged lines were. I examined your sites, and found not a single claim of a specifically altered line of text. If I missed such, then kindly copy/paste the relevant passage to this discussion. If you cannot do this, then that is evidence that none such exists.
B.Special_Pleadin':This is not an "emotional response" ..."
So, when I-pretend wants to wave his hands in dismissal of your blowing him out of the water, the hand-waving is an invalid move, BUT, when *you* want to wave your hands in dismissal of my blowing you out of the water, the hand-waving is a valid and spot-on move?
If you were anyone else, I'd call 'intellectual dishonesty', but we know that can't be the case here: for, after all, as eveyone understandds, leftists (like 'atheists' and DarwinDefenders) give themselves permission to argue both 'A' and 'not-A', simultaneously if need be. That is, does it even make sense to accuse some member of a group that doesn't even pretend to standards of consciously evading standards?
B.Prokop: "The intent is obvious. ... and he's doing all this with the intent of besmirching the reputation of the Church with charges he knows to be false.
All of the above = slander."
But I don't really *care* about his intent, for that doesn't help me to understand *why* the lie is a slander.
B.Prokop: "If Skep's accusations were true, then the Church is guilty of committing fraud of the worst possible nature, i.e., lying about what the Word of God was, and taking steps to make the alleged lie look like the truth."
Regardless of the topic, most, or even all, explanations must eventually come to the point where the only answer to "why?" is "because". But I don't think we've reached that point yet.
*WHY* would altering "the Word of God" (*) be a lie, and worse, a fraud? and why would it be a "fraud of the worst possible nature"? Is there something (uniquely?) special about, or some (uniquely?) privledged status attending to, "the Word of God"?
(*) I'm taking it to be significant in some way that you capitalize not just the word 'God', but also the word 'Word'.
Despite that I think we don't yet have an answer to the question I've been asking you for a couple of weeks, this recent post brings to my mind some related further questions --
Look again at the quoted sentence. In this sentence, you seem to be drawing a distinction of some sort between the original false accusation that "the church", as an organization, deliberately-and-as-policy altered the text of the Bible ("taking steps to make the alleged lie look like the truth") and what we might call the *real* crime or fraud ("lying about what the Word of God was"). Though, at the same time, this distinction (whatever it is) does not appear to indicate a full disjunction between "the Word of God" and the text of the Bible -- else, changing the text to echo the lie could not truely be said to be "taking steps to make the alleged lie look like the truth".
If this apparent distinction is what you mean to indicate, it seems to me that "lying about what the Word of God [is]" might be accomplished without actually altering the text of the Bible (**).
But, what about the converse? Is it possible to deliberately-and-as-organizational-policy alter the text of the Bible, but for this alteration to *not* be "lying about what the Word of God [is]"? Or, would such an alteration in itself be "lying about what the Word of God [is]"? In a way, this seems to me a restatement of the question I've been asking you all along.
(**) For example, so far as I'm aware, the Mormons (who claim to be Christians, and whom I deny are) haven't altered the text of the Bible. But, they have: 1) elevated 'The Book of Mormon' to at least equal, if not superior (as see the next point), status to the Bible; 2) (re)interpreted parts of the Biblical text in light of 'The Book of Mormon' to arrive at conclusions that run at variance with, or even contrary to, all historical Christian understandings, and indeed with the text itself (as understood to the best of our ability in the context of its time and place).
So, IF these reinterpretations of the text of the Bible (which presumably don't involve modification of the text itself) do count as "lying about what the Word of God [is]", is this because: 1) the reinterpretations run at variance with, or even contrary to, all historical Christian understandings? or, 2) the reinterpretations run at variance with, or even contrary to, the text itself (as understood to the best of our ability in the context of its time and place)?
Hugo: "im-skeptical does the same mistake too apparently, just like so many atheists we can read online, claiming that Theism is not based in evidence. Wrong, atheists saw the evidence but find it unconvincing."
Oh? Kind of like how non-Darwinists (or anti-Darwinists) have looked at the alleged "mountains of evidence" for Darwinism and find it risibly unconvincing ... and how all the DarwinDefenders are totally cool with that?
Ilíon said... "Hugo: "im-skeptical does the same mistake too apparently, just like so many atheists we can read online, claiming that Theism is not based in evidence. Wrong, atheists saw the evidence but find it unconvincing."
Oh? Kind of like how non-Darwinists (or anti-Darwinists) have looked at the alleged "mountains of evidence" for Darwinism and find it risibly unconvincing ... and how all the DarwinDefenders are totally cool with that?"
You don't seem to have understood the point but, nevertheless, you presented a good example yes. Someone rejecting Darwinism (and I assume here that it's a synonym for 'Theory of Evolution'?) cannot possibly say that there is no evidence. That is just insane. However, it's appropriate (but wrong according to biologists) to claim that the evidence is unconvincing.
Darwin Defenders would be right to complain if someone says there is no evidence; but if someone says the evidence is unconvincing, the answer should be very different. It should start from a discussion as to what the evidence is, and then figure out where the disagreement is.
Btw, I am not sure if this was addressed to me since I don't recall you calling me 'Hugo' before...
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208"None of the links identified a single line of supposedly altered scripture."
Seriously, Bob?
Seriously.
If they had, you would have been able to show on this website what the alleged lines were. I examined your sites, and found not a single claim of a specifically altered line of text. If I missed such, then kindly copy/paste the relevant passage to this discussion. If you cannot do this, then that is evidence that none such exists.
B.Special_Pleadin': This is not an "emotional response" ..."
So, when I-pretend wants to wave his hands in dismissal of your blowing him out of the water, the hand-waving is an invalid move, BUT, when *you* want to wave your hands in dismissal of my blowing you out of the water, the hand-waving is a valid and spot-on move?
If you were anyone else, I'd call 'intellectual dishonesty', but we know that can't be the case here: for, after all, as eveyone understandds, leftists (like 'atheists' and DarwinDefenders) give themselves permission to argue both 'A' and 'not-A', simultaneously if need be. That is, does it even make sense to accuse some member of a group that doesn't even pretend to standards of consciously evading standards?
"That is, does it even make sense to accuse some member of a group that doesn't even pretend to standards of consciously evading standards?"
Aa-a-a-ah! I finally understand you! Sometimes it takes a while for something to penetrate my concrete brain, but at last I get your point.
You are correct. It makes no sense.
B.Prokop: "The intent is obvious. ... and he's doing all this with the intent of besmirching the reputation of the Church with charges he knows to be false.
All of the above = slander."
But I don't really *care* about his intent, for that doesn't help me to understand *why* the lie is a slander.
B.Prokop: "If Skep's accusations were true, then the Church is guilty of committing fraud of the worst possible nature, i.e., lying about what the Word of God was, and taking steps to make the alleged lie look like the truth."
Regardless of the topic, most, or even all, explanations must eventually come to the point where the only answer to "why?" is "because". But I don't think we've reached that point yet.
*WHY* would altering "the Word of God" (*) be a lie, and worse, a fraud? and why would it be a "fraud of the worst possible nature"? Is there something (uniquely?) special about, or some (uniquely?) privledged status attending to, "the Word of God"?
(*) I'm taking it to be significant in some way that you capitalize not just the word 'God', but also the word 'Word'.
Despite that I think we don't yet have an answer to the question I've been asking you for a couple of weeks, this recent post brings to my mind some related further questions --
Look again at the quoted sentence. In this sentence, you seem to be drawing a distinction of some sort between the original false accusation that "the church", as an organization, deliberately-and-as-policy altered the text of the Bible ("taking steps to make the alleged lie look like the truth") and what we might call the *real* crime or fraud ("lying about what the Word of God was"). Though, at the same time, this distinction (whatever it is) does not appear to indicate a full disjunction between "the Word of God" and the text of the Bible -- else, changing the text to echo the lie could not truely be said to be "taking steps to make the alleged lie look like the truth".
If this apparent distinction is what you mean to indicate, it seems to me that "lying about what the Word of God [is]" might be accomplished without actually altering the text of the Bible (**).
But, what about the converse? Is it possible to deliberately-and-as-organizational-policy alter the text of the Bible, but for this alteration to *not* be "lying about what the Word of God [is]"? Or, would such an alteration in itself be "lying about what the Word of God [is]"? In a way, this seems to me a restatement of the question I've been asking you all along.
(**) For example, so far as I'm aware, the Mormons (who claim to be Christians, and whom I deny are) haven't altered the text of the Bible. But, they have:
1) elevated 'The Book of Mormon' to at least equal, if not superior (as see the next point), status to the Bible;
2) (re)interpreted parts of the Biblical text in light of 'The Book of Mormon' to arrive at conclusions that run at variance with, or even contrary to, all historical Christian understandings, and indeed with the text itself (as understood to the best of our ability in the context of its time and place).
So, IF these reinterpretations of the text of the Bible (which presumably don't involve modification of the text itself) do count as "lying about what the Word of God [is]", is this because:
1) the reinterpretations run at variance with, or even contrary to, all historical Christian understandings? or,
2) the reinterpretations run at variance with, or even contrary to, the text itself (as understood to the best of our ability in the context of its time and place)?
Hugo: "im-skeptical does the same mistake too apparently, just like so many atheists we can read online, claiming that Theism is not based in evidence. Wrong, atheists saw the evidence but find it unconvincing."
Oh? Kind of like how non-Darwinists (or anti-Darwinists) have looked at the alleged "mountains of evidence" for Darwinism and find it risibly unconvincing ... and how all the DarwinDefenders are totally cool with that?
Ilíon said...
"Hugo: "im-skeptical does the same mistake too apparently, just like so many atheists we can read online, claiming that Theism is not based in evidence. Wrong, atheists saw the evidence but find it unconvincing."
Oh? Kind of like how non-Darwinists (or anti-Darwinists) have looked at the alleged "mountains of evidence" for Darwinism and find it risibly unconvincing ... and how all the DarwinDefenders are totally cool with that?"
You don't seem to have understood the point but, nevertheless, you presented a good example yes. Someone rejecting Darwinism (and I assume here that it's a synonym for 'Theory of Evolution'?) cannot possibly say that there is no evidence. That is just insane. However, it's appropriate (but wrong according to biologists) to claim that the evidence is unconvincing.
Darwin Defenders would be right to complain if someone says there is no evidence; but if someone says the evidence is unconvincing, the answer should be very different. It should start from a discussion as to what the evidence is, and then figure out where the disagreement is.
Btw, I am not sure if this was addressed to me since I don't recall you calling me 'Hugo' before...
Post a Comment