This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I don't think Cal understands the importance of the evidence about titles. He is speaking as though there is this one area where any number of people living would know all the titles. Not the deal Take second missionary journey. Here is a map, look at it Looking at the map you can see how extensive the travels were. Jerusalem, to Cilicia to Macedonia and back by way of a different route thus making great circle. This was in an age when going 20 miles would take two or three days. Travels was dangerous. no rest stops, can't call cops if you are attacked. Can't call a toe truck and they were probably walking. The guy who wrote that account was obviously on the journey. Most people just didn't make that kind of trek.It is possible that some merchant or solider made that journey a d supplied the info to help make it look realistic. The you still have to account for the circle of churches and the letters a Paul wrote to them, obviously having been there. It is much mower likely that they really made the journey.If you have to deny the supernatural then deny it. so they made this naturalist journey, that still means the factual nature of the accounts are more likely.
VR: "The degree of the factual foundation for Christianity vastly exceeds the factual foundation of all competing religious claims."Um, no it doesn't. At all. Mundane factual inconsistencies abound in the NT. Starting with three men following a comet (what?) to Bethlehem, even though Jesus was pretty clearly from Nazareth, for the inexplicable reason that the Romans thought this one time that a census should count where people were born instead of where they lived and worked. That's quite the factual trifecta of nonsense right out of the box, and only the religiously blinkered could think otherwise.But that doesn't even matter. Because factual consistence and inconsistencies have nothing to do with the superstitious (supernatural?) claims for Chrisitianity (and all other religions). It would, of course, be much more impressive if they NT contained NOTHING that was corroborated by facts known around the time and setting of the NT, BUT INSTEAD actually gave us something (more than stories) that wasn't mundane or ordinary. Mudane and Ordinary, plus Stories = All Religious Claims. Isn't it kind of sad that the best the religious can do, when asked for a demonstration of their religion's claims, is refer back to those mundane parts of reality around their story that have nothing to do with their religious claims. As if, for instance, the height of Joseph Smith's collar could lend credence to the claims around the golden plates, or that his persistence in his beliefs that led to his death meant anything more than that he was vested in the claims he had laid on record.You think of the reasons you don't find Mormonism credible. But Mormons don't believe that DNA evidence invalidates their religious belief in tribal migration. And Christians don't believe that DNA evidence invalidates their religious belief in special creation. Somehow, you see your position as special and privileged compared to that of Mormons and other religious believers, all of whom rationalize in similar way to you. To those of us who are free of religious conviction, you all have the same sign pinned to your backs. You all see some special significance in the mundane facts around your religions, and ignore those problems in your religious claims that you can clearly see in others. And that's because, if we choose to, we can all rationalize (through ad hoc reasoning and any number of other fallacies) any belief we'd like to retain. This entire 'consistency with mundane facts' approach to religious claims reminds me of the movie Ghostbusters, where Dr. Ray Stantz points to a stack of books in the library as evidence of supernatural involvement. As Peter Venkman points out sarcastically (and correctly) "You're right, no *human being* would stack books like this."
you did not answer me Cal. Does that mean you don't understand what I than most people would ever see in their lives in that era.So the argument you made about they are just familiar with where they live does not apply.
@Joe, I sincerely have problems understanding a lot of your comments. You seem to be missing crucial words in sentences, you seem to be referring to things you think I wrote but didn't or just misconstrue my criticism, etc. I don't have a lot of time to break down most of your comments, and so if I can't figure out what you're saying I just choose to move on. If you could more carefully explain your objection, quoting the relevant parts of my comments that you are addressing, that would be a huge if you would like me to respond.
Post a Comment