- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arkansas' new Ten Commandments monument at Capitol destroyed
Posted on 6/28/17 at 10:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 6/28/17 at 10:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Call it an early form of peer review if you'd like. Christians who were concerned about the truth would certainly be critical of every new letter or manuscript being passed around as authentic if it was not, especially documents that were leading Christians astray.
Another sweet convenience.
1
Posted on 6/28/17 at 10:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Call it an early form of peer review if you'd like.
Pass. That would be dishonest.
quote:
Christians who were concerned about the truth would certainly be critical of every new letter or manuscript being passed around as authentic if it was not, especially documents that were leading Christians astray.
More likely, they were concerned about anything that might contradict their version of the truth, or even just show inherent hypocrisy.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 10:51 pm to geauxtigahs87
quote:
We need good fiction to read in the summer.
I thought Democrats knowing how to read was fiction in itself.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 11:06 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Not really.
Pass. That would be dishonest.
quote:Men claiming to be Christians were writing documents and passing them off as texts from the apostles. The churches of the day would review those documents and compare them to what was already accepted to determine their validity. There were several factors that went in to such determinations, including whether or not they contradicted known scripture. You see that as a convenience but if all scripture is from God and He can't lie, then there shouldn't be any real contradictions. If there were contradictions, those documents were discarded as fakes or uninspired literature not to be included in the canon of scripture that would eventually be formalized due to the number of false documents being circulated as authentic.
More likely, they were concerned about anything that might contradict their version of the truth, or even just show inherent hypocrisy.
You might not believe the stories in the Bible, but you can tell the difference between the accepted scriptures and the manuscripts that were thrown out. Take a look at the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew if you have some time. It's got dragons in it.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 11:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not really.
Yes, really.
quote:
Men claiming to be Christians were writing documents and passing them off as texts from the apostles. The churches of the day would review those documents and compare them to what was already accepted to determine their validity. There were several factors that went in to such determinations, including whether or not they contradicted known scripture. You see that as a convenience but if all scripture is from God and He can't lie, then there shouldn't be any real contradictions. If there were contradictions, those documents were discarded as fakes or uninspired literature not to be included in the canon of scripture that would eventually be formalized due to the number of false documents being circulated as authentic.
Men in positions of power were selective in what was "truth." Texts were reviewed to determine what was the most beneficial to their goals. If nothing fit, it was simply forged and passed off as truth.
Ever read any Bart Ehrman? He has quite a few interesting articles and books on the topic.
Be warned, he's no friend to apologists.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 11:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:No, really. It was peer review in the sense that their peers at the time were passing off documents as authentic and were reviewed to make sure they pass muster as legitimate writings (they weren't). If you don't want to call it that, fine. No need to resort to your typical non-answer answers. Keep it up and I'll start shunning all of your responses, and not just the ones about objective vs. subjective truth (not that you care).
Yes, really.
quote:I was with you up until "beneficial to their goals". Yeah, that's not true. Maybe if we didn't have rejected texts you could make that baseless claim with seriousness but we have access to what was rejected. What's telling is that the only modern critics that give serious weight to those rejected texts (and support your hypothesis) are the ones that deny the deity of Christ. And with that segue...
Men in positions of power were selective in what was "truth." Texts were reviewed to determine what was the most beneficial to their goals. If nothing fit, it was simply forged and passed off as truth.
quote:Yes, I've read a little bit of Ehrman. He's one of those critics I was just referring to. He takes a naturalist view of Jesus. He thinks that Jesus never claimed to be divine and that his divine nature was attributed to him afterwards by his followers who made him out to be more than he was. It's hardly a novel idea. His articles are definitely interesting as you say, but this guy is a Grade A heretic.
Ever read any Bart Ehrman? He has quite a few interesting articles and books on the topic.
Be warned, he's no friend to apologists.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 6:21 am to FooManChoo
quote:
No, really.
Yes, really. They weren't "peer reviewed." Period.
It has little to do with what I want to call it. It's simply not an accurate description. By attempting to describe it in that manner, you damage any credibility you probably didn't have in the first place.
quote:
Yeah, that's not true. Maybe if we didn't have rejected texts you could make that baseless claim with seriousness but we have access to what was rejected.
This is nonsensical. The fact that some texts were rejected doesn't give any amount of truth or legitimacy to the rest.
quote:
What's telling is that the only modern critics that give serious weight to those rejected texts (and support your hypothesis) are the ones that deny the deity of Christ. And with that segue...
Meaning, the ones that dismiss those ideas are the ones that accept the deity of Christ.
You don't say...
quote:
His articles are definitely interesting as you say, but this guy is a Grade A heretic.
He's a very well-respected scholar with work that has actually been peer reviewed. Of course you don't like it, but that doesn't degrade his writings.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 6:24 am to DawgfaninCa
Did he break any of the Commandments when he did this?
Jesus forgives. Will you religious zealots forgive as well?
Jesus forgives. Will you religious zealots forgive as well?
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 6:26 am
Posted on 6/29/17 at 7:00 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Will you religious zealots forgive as well?
Sure we will. Forgiving you heathens is something we have plenty of practice at.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 9:50 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Methinks you didn't understand what I was saying when I said "Call it an early form of peer review if you'd like." Either that or you are making a stink over a completely inessential part of my statement. Obviously it wasn't peer review as we see it today in scientific and professional contexts, however at its core, peer review is simply evaluation of the work of others within a particular field.
Yes, really. They weren't "peer reviewed." Period.
I think it was pretty clear what I was saying so I don't understand why you are taking such an exception to it. It was completely tertiary to my overall point so if you really want to make a big deal about me calling the evaluation of other purportedly Christian texts by other Christian scholars, theologians, and church leaders "an early form of peer review", I'll take it back while rolling my eyes.
quote:You're being very dramatic and it's unbecoming. I was attempting to describe what the Christian leaders and theologians of the day were doing when evaluating those inauthentic texts in terms that you and others might understand since there seemed to be some difficulty in accepting that they weren't just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other Christians. If you want to die on this hill, go for it. It's rather petty.
It has little to do with what I want to call it. It's simply not an accurate description. By attempting to describe it in that manner, you damage any credibility you probably didn't have in the first place
quote:Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly or you just didn't understand me, but it's not nonsensical at all. Of course the act of rejecting a text doesn't give automatic legitimacy to those that weren't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that we still have those rejected texts and upon examination, you can clearly see why they were rejected when compared to the accepted scriptures. Such examination 1600+ years after the fact provides legitimacy to the acts of those who were making such decisions, at least in the eyes of those who understand such things and who don't share your view of those men just wanting to control the masses or obtain some nefarious goal other than protecting the truth and legitimacy of the scriptures.
This is nonsensical. The fact that some texts were rejected doesn't give any amount of truth or legitimacy to the rest.
quote:Exactly. But between the two, I'll go with what the texts says, rather than stripping away parts of the text to reinforce pure speculation based on a worldview that cannot accept what the text says, regardless of whether the text is true or not.
Meaning, the ones that dismiss those ideas are the ones that accept the deity of Christ.
You don't say...
quote:I've never been impressed by credentials when it comes to truth claims but I have a completely neutral opinion of the man (I neither like him nor dislike him). However I strongly dislike his claims because I view them to be erroneous and heretical (as I said). Whether he is well-respected, a scholar, or has had some work peer reviewed is of no consequence to me in this regard. I'm sure there are men who reject his claims who are also scholars, well-respected, and peer reviewed, because that's the nature of these things. You'll find such people on both sides of just about any argument.
He's a very well-respected scholar with work that has actually been peer reviewed. Of course you don't like it, but that doesn't degrade his writings.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:40 am to IAmReality
quote:agree 100 percent. destroying private property like this is not ok.
Even if you're against the monument surely you can't support a maniac taking the law into his own hands.
if it were up to me i would just put this statue right next to the monument, and i bet christians would even help me do it since they're so excited about living in a country where people are free to express their religious beliefs. they'd be thrilled, it would be a win-win for everyone involved!
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 10:49 am
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:46 am to FooManChoo
quote:so you actually think historians ignore the miracles because of their worldview, and not because there's no evidence those things ever happened?
my point is that historians generally accept Jesus as a real person based on the same evidence Christians do. They just reject those pieces of the evidence about Christ that don't fit their worldviews, such as the miracles.
its frightening how delusional you are. youre a terrorist waiting to happen.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:31 am to MastrShake
quote:Yes, I am saying that.
so you actually think historians ignore the miracles because of their worldview, and not because there's no evidence those things ever happened?
If a person picked up the Bible, for example, and read about Jesus and concluded He existed yet rejected the miracles it says He performed, what other conclusion can you come to? If you say "there's no evidence those things ever happened", I could respond with "sure, outside of the Biblical written accounts, but those same written accounts are the lion's share of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, so why would you accept His existence based on that evidence but reject the miracles based on that same evidence?" It would be a logical inconsistency unless you have to reject the supernatural aspects due to your worldview, like I said.
quote:
its frightening how delusional you are. youre a terrorist waiting to happen.
OK... You think I'm a terrorist waiting to happen because I take the Bible seriously like Christians like me have done for the past 2,000 years? You must be the delusional one if you think that. Nothing in my worldview justifies terrorism.Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:37 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Methinks you didn't understand what I was saying
No, I got it. You're just wrong. It isn't an early form of peer review, either.
quote:
Either that or you are making a stink over a completely inessential part of my statement.
I try to be correct when I say things.
Try it sometime.
quote:
I'll take it back while rolling my eyes.
I don't really care what you do. Just pointing it out so no one assigns any undeserved validity to this point, or any others you made.
quote:
You're being very dramatic
Incorrect. I'm being very pointed and factual.
quote:
I was attempting
Indeed, and poorly.
quote:
My point was
I'm not entirely concerned with this until you get the basics down. By claiming these others have been through some form of "peer review" you're attempting to assign legitimacy that isn't warranted, whether intentional or not.
At least you've walked back from that. It is interesting to see that you won't fully come off the point, though.
quote:
I'll go with what the texts says
In that context, it's no more valuable than any other religious text and we have no convincing reason to treat it as anything more than "consistently" recorded mythology.
I'm fine with that outcome.
quote:
I've never been impressed by credentials
Sure, but they're valuable nonetheless.
quote:
Whether he is well-respected, a scholar, or has had some work peer reviewed is of no consequence to me in this regard.
Of course, but that's almost certainly because his views don't correspond to your own. Meaning, this all comes down to little more than what you personally believe.
And, again, I'm completely fine with that outcome. I just won't assign any amount of importance to them.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:38 am to DawgfaninCa
The people that claim that gay marriage affects no one are the same group that get offended by a momunment that also doesn't affect anyone.
Must be nice to have nothing else to worry about than if a statue or monument is standing.
Must be nice to have nothing else to worry about than if a statue or monument is standing.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 11:51 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I could respond with "sure, outside of the Biblical written accounts, but those same written accounts are the lion's share of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, so why would you accept His existence based on that evidence but reject the miracles based on that same evidence?"
The answer is simple. There is external information for the existence of Jesus, or at least for the existence of someone that formed the basis for the Christian mythology.
There is zero for any of his miracles. Zero.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:00 pm to MastrShake
quote:
if it were up to me i would just put this statue right next to the monument, and i bet christians would even help me do it since they're so excited about living in a country where people are free to express their religious beliefs. they'd be thrilled, it would be a win-win for everyone involved!
Put it up in your front yard if you think it is an expression of your free speech that it should be put in a place where the public can see it.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:03 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
You find yourself drawn to these conversation for a reason, ya know?
Let me guess...because you think he must actually believe, right?
LINK
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:04 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Put it up in your front yard if you think it is an expression of your free speech that it should be put in a place where the public can see it.
There was a big fuss about removing religious symbols from public land. I assume you also favor putting those in your front yard as well.
For clarity, the local Christians did not.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
OK... You think I'm a terrorist waiting to happen because I take the Bible seriously like Christians like me have done for the past 2,000 years? You must be the delusional one if you think that. Nothing in my worldview justifies terrorism.
I think he's saying that folks like you who dogmatically believe holy texts have been known...on occasion...to violently force their worldview on others.
Your casual attitude about this, and nonchalant suggestion that nothing of the sort could ever take place reminds me of this great Christopher Hitchens quote...
quote:
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
ETA: I'm sure my inclusion in a religious topic on the Poli Board like the old days will serve as the anchor point...so sorry about that in advance!
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 12:12 pm
Page 10 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News