tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post114600562092200696..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Parsons replies to J. P. HoldingVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31021437434691700522007-04-02T20:13:00.000-07:002007-04-02T20:13:00.000-07:00The following is very general comment on the whole...The following is very general comment on the whole course of the discussion. I hope that I won't be misunderstood when I say that, although I disagree with Keith Parsons's conclusions, I sympathize quite a bit with his arguments. I find in my own case that the gospel message, including the resurrection, is credible more because it makes sense spiritually than because its historical credentials are impeccable. That is not to say that I would believe it in the face of a mountain of contrary historical evidence. But making the kind of sense that the gospel does--its own kind of sense which can't really be compared precisely with that of any other class of information--I find it easy to grant it a very large benefit of the doubt that I would otherwise withold.<BR/><BR/>For example, say for the sake of argument we grant that there is a personal, creative intelligence behind the universe. Suppose also that human suffering is the tangled result of misuse of moral freedom that has introduced a barrier between this intelligence and his creation. That's a lot to grant, I know. But If we do so, does it make sense that this creator would have to actually enter into, not just his creation, but the suffering of his creation in order to remedy the situation? I find this astonishingly credible, even inevitable. Unbelievers disagree, naturally. Nevertheless, as I say, if it does makes sense it does so in its own unique way and to reject it is not to reject a historical reconstruction alone. Perhaps there are believers who have been able to separate the spiritual dimension of the gospel from a detached historical point of view and come to belief as the result of a calculated judgment, but I suspect that this is rarely the case. I also doubt that unbelievers can entirely separate the spiritual and historical aspects when they make their own judgments.Darek Barefoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10372516755957865348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65102770950149659642007-03-30T13:54:00.000-07:002007-03-30T13:54:00.000-07:00'kay, good! Just thought I'd better check! {g}Than...'kay, good! Just thought I'd better check! {g}<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Ex,<BR/><BR/>JasonJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63568485778261136732007-03-30T12:07:00.000-07:002007-03-30T12:07:00.000-07:00Hi Jason,No, you certainly do not! You're a sharp...Hi Jason,<BR/><BR/>No, you certainly do not! You're a sharp guy, and intellectually honest. I certainly respect you, as well as Victor. I think both of you hold your beliefs in intellectually responsible ways.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82219478638775715932007-03-30T10:16:00.000-07:002007-03-30T10:16:00.000-07:00Well, seeing as how I bent over backwards numerous...Well, seeing as how I bent over backwards numerous times to give Keith credit everywhere I could, and even added a comment where I summarized why I judge him to have won by a solid edge in the 1996 WLC debate, I hope _I_ don't count as "hacky tortured Fox-news style" reasoning. {g}<BR/><BR/>("Long strings of gibberish," maybe... {lol!})<BR/><BR/>JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37238877671001155712007-03-29T18:57:00.000-07:002007-03-29T18:57:00.000-07:00Hi Victor,If you send me your email address to min...Hi Victor,<BR/><BR/>If you send me your email address to mine (exapologist@yahoo.com), I can then invite you over.<BR/><BR/>The best? How about James Dunn vs. E.P. Sanders for the historical stuff re: the central claims of Christianity? Or how about Dale Allison vs. N.T. Wright on the nature of Jesus' apocalyptic claims? Now *that* would be a discussion that would really get to root of things regarding the merits, or otherwise, of the claims of the historic Christian faith. Or so it seems to me.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50542565991647975252007-03-29T15:58:00.000-07:002007-03-29T15:58:00.000-07:00Exapologist: How do I go about being invited to po...Exapologist: How do I go about being invited to post on your blog?<BR/><BR/>As an instructor (as opposed to being an apologist) It's my primary job to get both sides as represented as best I can. And as an apologist, it's my conviction that we do our best work when we come to terms with our own and other people's questions honestly rather than trying to say whatever we think will make the Gospel look the best.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26026387068672035182007-03-29T15:57:00.000-07:002007-03-29T15:57:00.000-07:00Exapologist: How do I go about being invited to po...Exapologist: How do I go about being invited to post on your blog?<BR/><BR/>As an instructor (as opposed to being an apologist) It's my primary job to get both sides as represented as best I can. And as an apologist, it's my conviction that we do our best work when we come to terms with our own and other people's questions honestly rather than trying to say whatever we think will make the Gospel look the best.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17244415302052873042007-03-29T10:58:00.000-07:002007-03-29T10:58:00.000-07:00While I think it's important to debate the merits ...While I think it's important to debate the merits of the historical evidence, I make a larger claim. I claim that if God chose to reveal himself in history and to verify his revelation in history, then he chose a poor medium to do so. <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-could-god-reveal-himself-to-us.html" REL="nofollow">Follow the links</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61018047461241654632007-03-28T22:03:00.000-07:002007-03-28T22:03:00.000-07:00The best thing about this exchange, I think, is th...The best thing about this exchange, I think, is that it shows for all to see, via Parsons' demonstration, how hacky Holding-style apologists are. I am so grateful to Parsons for taking the time to point out specific instances of Holding's tortured, Fox-News style of reasoning. <BR/><BR/>I've endured that sort of exchange from other hacky apologists, but I never had the patience to actually take the time to point out in detail the kinds of horrible reasoning that such apologists routinely make (and I mean *routinely* -- their writings consist of little else than long chains of reasoning like the one's for which Parsons rightly chides Holding). I tend to just lose all motivation to continue such discussions once I see that this is the sort of thing I'm dealing with (why bother, if the next reply I get is going to be a long string of jibberish like this, in which case the bulk of my time must then be spent on re-stating and clarifying the position I just presented, after it's been systematically distorted by my interlocutor?).<BR/><BR/> It always amazes me that apologists of this sort -- the Triablogue and the Holding sort -- actually have large groups of faithful readers. The only explanation I can think of is that their readers can't tell the difference between good and bad reasoning. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your patience in replying to Holding, Keith!<BR/><BR/>Victor, please don't let your blog descend to the level of a Triablogue- or a Tektonics-style blog. You have something precious here.exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1146119520865909312006-04-26T23:32:00.000-07:002006-04-26T23:32:00.000-07:00Thank you Dr. Parsons for your insightful post and...Thank you Dr. Parsons for your insightful post and thank you Vic for sharing it. <BR/><BR/>I agree with Parsons concerning all three of the following matters: <BR/><BR/>1) We have no firm evidence of when the resurrection of Jesus began being preached. According to Acts, a partisan document to say the least (also an anonymously written one) such preaching began 49 days (=seven weeks) later. But who can say for sure? <BR/><BR/>Speaking of questions regarding "when" something took place, the anonymous author of Luke-Acts appears to disagree even with himself on how long the resurrected Jesus remained on earth. Did Jesus ascend into heaven right after showing himself to the disciples on Sunday night, or stick around longer(Acts), imparting wisdom to them for 40 days--and of course, Acts forgets to share much else except the duration of time such wisdom was being imparted. I guess no one thought that collecting and preserving all of Jesus's post-resurrection words/teachings was as important as say, repeating the pre-resurrection stories. In fact, very few words appear to have survived of the so-called post-resurrected Jesus, though later Gospels contain increasingly more post-rez words than the earliest sources such as Paul or even the two earliest Gospels do (Mark and Matthew). See: <A HREF="http://edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_jesus.html" REL="nofollow">Literary Criticism and Historical Accuracy of the Gospels, Including a Discussion of the Alleged Words Spoken by the Resurrected Jesus That Grew In Number With Each New Gospel, Or That Were Simply Added Later As in Mark's Three Additional Late Endings</A>). <BR/><BR/>Another interesting matter concerning the ability of the anonymous author of Luke-Acts to "keep time" is the difference between Acts and Paul concerning how long it took Paul after his conversion to visit Jerusalem. Did Paul journey straightaway to Jerusalem (Acts) or only after three years (Paul)? <BR/><BR/>~~~~~~~~~~<BR/><BR/>2) Parsons also asked whether fresh converts to the earliest preachments of the Jesus sect required as much hard evidence as modern day Christian apologists presuppose. <BR/><BR/>If the N.T. is correct, some people were asking in Jesus's own day whether or not John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead." So how much hard evidence did it take to start a miraculous story I wonder? <BR/><BR/>And how much evidence does it take people even today to join a cult that makes them send money each month to faith healers whose claims have been thoroughly debunked by hard evidence? <BR/><BR/>Or how much hard evidence does it take to convince some people even today to join a cult that ends up with them drinking poison Kool-Aide (Jonestown & Heaven's Gate)? <BR/><BR/>Indeed how well would Christianity have fared had snopes.com been in business back then, or if first century Jerusalem had had an insane asylum for wild eyed apocalyptists? (Keep in mind that snopes.com is not doing very well at keeping down wild rumors and tall tails from spreading like wildfire via emails even TODAY. And Jerusalem still has some wild eyed apocalyptists roaming its streets (including dispensationalist Christians who believe they are going to miraculously be rocketed off to heaven any minute during a rapture) even though there are Jewish psychiatrists and mental health clinics in that holy city now. <BR/><BR/>"Local psychiatrists now speak of a Jerusalem syndrome. A hundred-odd pilgrims and tourists are treated each year at Kfar Shaul Hospital, the government mental-health center serving the Jerusalem area, for breakdowns related to this syndrome, which involves messianic fantasies and delusions of being Mary Magdalene, John the Baptist, or other Biblical characters. They are mostly Americans and almost all are Protestant. Many have a strong grounding in the Bible. In Jerusalem, they suddenly take off their clothes or shout prophecies on street corners, only to revert to normal after a few days’ treatment." <BR/><BR/>SOURCE: Amos Elon, Jerusalem: City of Mirrors<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>And isn't it’s amazing all the goofy if not downright destructive things some people feel inspired to do after reading the Bible. Folks who would never take a road sign out of context (“Oh look, ‘Speed Zone Ahead.’ Guess I’d better punch it.”) read Luke 10:19 (“Behold I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions…and nothing shall… hurt you”) and they join a church that passes not only a collection plate but a box of copperheads. Funny, they don’t seem too keen on scorpions. Maybe “scorpion treader” doesn’t sound as cool as “serpent handler?”<BR/><BR/>SOURCE: David Windhorst, “God May Kill You For Reading This… And I’m A Little Nervous Myself”<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>The North American Securities Administrators Association report, Preying on the Faithful: The False Prophets of the Investment World, described scams and cons by “religious” entrepreneurs. One outfit cited the blessing of the tribe of Asher by Moses in Deuteronomy that “the feet of the people will be bathed in oil” as the basis for drilling for oil. More than 15,000 Americans were swindled out of $450 million between 1984 and 1989 due to religious-affinity fraud. And at least 80,000 people lost $2 billion between 1998 and 2001 in religious scams. Religious scams are among the most common and Christians are easy targets. Investors are often following the advice of trusted leaders. Barry Minkow says that in just one year he has personally uncovered more than $1 billion in church-based scams and other fraud targeting Christians. Some schemes don’t target Christians but spread quickly once introduced in a church. Others go unreported, or regulators can’t shut them down because victims refuse to testify. In one case, Joe Borg (director of the Alabama Securities Commission) said church members “were told that if they spoke to us, they would be excommunicated and their souls damned to hell. We had a lot of folks who said, ‘Look, I may have lost everything I own, but I’m not going to take a chance.’” Borg says they play on victims’ greed (promising huge returns) while easing their conscience by saying that the investment comes from God or that the money is being invested in ministry. <BR/><BR/>SOURCE: Walter Hoops, “At Random,” The American Rationalist, Jan./Feb. 1991; Ted Olsen, “Bilking the Brethren,” and, Rob Moll, “The Fraud Buster: The Faithful Are Being Defrauded of Billions,” Christianity Today, Vol. 49, No. 1, Jan. 2005<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/>3) I also agree with Parsons's assessment of the situation when the first followers of Jesus began preaching and seeking converts. They probably went to Jerusalem during one of the large festivals--along with many other sectarian street preachers--because all preachers are attracted to potential converts and large audience. Vast crowds were winding their way through the holy city, and festivals were an especially busy and crowded time. Thus any preacher ensured themself listeners, including people of all levels of education and/or gullibility, while others were quite literally fearful of God, guilty, and/or seeking assurance of personal salvation, and others were driven by curiosity, desiring the latest new revelations or signs of apocalyptic times, and others still simply attracted to tales/stories, because preaching and/or repeating tales was a major form of entertainment, not like they had radios, TVs, movies, or even plays (except in Greece and the Hellenized world). People would talk about stuff. Talk it to death, and perhaps even talk it to life.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com