[This is the response to the second half of the list]
This list of issues was posted at poached egg, and attributed to Harry H McCall on John Loftus’ blog:
“Explanations for Luke Breuer and David Marshall (or Any Christian Apologist) to Answer:
A. Apart from myth and superstition, please name at least one scientific discovery the Bible has given humanity.
B. Please explain how theology is a valid approach to logic, especially in making the world a better place.
C. Based on medieval monasteries, please explain why books in these libraries were organized by monks based on truth and knowledge of the time and why in our scientific age, this order is totally reversed: 1. The Bible 2. Theology 3. Philosophy 4. Medicine Is now: 1. Medicine 2. Philosophy 3. Theology 4. The Bible
D. Please explain how any theology that justifies “C” above can ever be taken seriously.
E. Please explain why human knowledge is condemned in Genesis 3 with humanity eternally punished, yet the very same knowledge (gained by eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge) now must be used by Christian apologists to defend the very God who has cursed humanity forever.
F. Please explain how the Bible is any different from the mythological world of other false religions or why the Bible can’t objectively face itself in the historical religious mirror without denying reality.
G. Please explain why the Bible (The Word of God), which reveals absolute truth must be constantly defended especially in societies (such as the United States and modern Europe) that have freedom from religion.
H. Please explain why God, outside of the Bible, is seen functioning only though subjective interpretations and why the words faith, theology, or God are NOT found in Black’s Law Dictionary and why such words so vital to theology and doctrine as constantly argued by apologist would never hold up in a modern court of law.
I. Please explain why no other field of objective inquiry is fixed on unproven dogma for 2,000 plus years, especially dogmatic religious faith that continually fails to provide advancement in stopping human suffering.
J. Please explained why a self professed ancient work known to Christianity as the Old Testament claiming to record at least 4,000 years of world history directed by God vanishes into thin air before 200 BCE.
K. Please explain why, apart from the New Testament’s Gospels, a Historical Jesus fails to have left any mark in Roman Palestine apart from the dubious comment of Josephus.
L. Please tell us, apart from theology, how you KNOW the Bible is objectively true.
M. Based on the above answers, please explain why any future apologetic objections should be taken with little more than a grain of salt.”
Now, taking the second part:
I. Please explain why no other field of objective inquiry is fixed on unproven dogma for 2,000 plus years, especially dogmatic religious faith that continually fails to provide advancement in stopping human suffering.First, this is false. All philosophy from the Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle are in the same category of “unprovability” given that they provide first principles which are self-evident. Not only is the concept false, but the unstated presupposition is false, because it presumes that there is (a) a need for objective, material proof, and (b) that there is no other method of proof or comprehension. In fact, Aristotelian syllogistic deductive logic precedes the time frame noted, and is the basis for objective empiricism used today in reputable science (as opposed to Scientism). This question comes from a place of deep ignorance.
J. Please explained why a self professed ancient work known to Christianity as the Old Testament claiming to record at least 4,000 years of world history directed by God vanishes into thin air before 200 BCE.This question makes no sense; the OT did not vanish and to say that it did is absurd. He must have meant something entirely different from what he typed in, but what that is, is not apparent. Or, maybe he did mean it, and that reflects on his comprehension.
K. Please explain why, apart from the New Testament’s Gospels, a Historical Jesus fails to have left any mark in Roman Palestine apart from the dubious comment of Josephus.Please explain why you don’t know about the other historical, contemporary mentions?
Tacitus, who also mentions Nero (can historians who don’t know the historical actors still be credible? Did Nero exist?) mentions the contemporary Christians in Rome. (Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome).
Also, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Lucian, Barsarapion, Thallus, Phlegon, Suetonius, Celsus, Julian the Apostate, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Quadratus, Barnabus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Hadrian, Juvenal, Seneca, Antonius Pius, Galen.
It is odd that these are rejected or not known, and it is odd that the expansion of Christianty away from Palestine even before the Jewish expulsion in 70 AD is not known to the author of these questions; his ignorance is pervasive. In order to deny the existence of Jesus, a great many sources must be ignored, starting with those who were close to the events, and then those who documented the events as historians.
L. Please tell us, apart from theology, how you KNOW the Bible is objectively true.Only those who are materialist/physicalist Atheists use the term, “objectively”, in this inappropriate sense. For the Atheist, there is no… NO… objective truth, and he will not be convinced otherwise. There is objectivity in empirical science, but no… NO… objective TRUTH. There is only a set of contingent factoids. So the Atheist thinks that he has a fool proof trick question here. But the honest Atheist would not even pose it, since he “knows” that there is no objective truth to be had. Nor do theists claim an “objective” truth; the truth of the bible is contained in its metanarrative, and is subjectively apprehended, and only by those who are open to it.
So the question does not even apply, and is a silly attempt at rhetorical trickery.
M. Based on the above answers, please explain why any future apologetic objections should be taken with little more than a grain of salt.”This is merely an insult attempt based on the presumption that there are no decent answers to the questioner’s issues. But his issues are a complete failure, and thus so is his insult, which is another indicator of a juvenile intellectual understanding of logic, of truth, of history and of Christianity. Not to mention his overreach of certainty in his position.
Much of what passes for Atheist "thought" is merely the juvenile snark found on Atheist blogs and pits. Not to think through or analyze their content is endemic to ideologists who cannot think beyond bumper sticker sloganeering. This has been an example of that.
3 comments:
There is no copy of the Old Testament to be found until shortly after the end of the Babylonian exile. There are no inscriptions or writings from before 200 B.C. that bear any resemblance to Old Testament scripture, either. So I think that is what Harry is referring to in "J".
In "K", Harry is referring to the fact that aside from the Gospel writers, no single Jew, Roman, or Philistine ever wrote about seeing Jesus personally, or ever wrote about any miracles he performed. There is no record of the resurrection of the Saints near the end of Christs time on Earth, no record of a rent veil in the Temple, and the eclipse that Tallus mentions was an actual eclipse and not a darkness lasting three hours as it says in the Gospels.
Richard said, “There is no copy of the Old Testament to be found until shortly after the end of the Babylonian exile. There are no inscriptions or writings from before 200 B.C. that bear any resemblance to Old Testament scripture, either. So I think that is what Harry is referring to in "J".
OK, thanks, at least that interpretation makes sense. But the answer is “so… What?” What exactly are the consequences of that? It is well known that the Qumran scrolls remained sealed for over 2,000 years and are still just fragments, too fragile to handle. What would be the state of those which were not sealed, say for 4,000 years? Or more than that? If it is expected that they should exist, rather than copies, then it is the expectation which is absurd, not their non-existence.
Richard: In "K", Harry is referring to the fact that aside from the Gospel writers, no single Jew, Roman, or Philistine ever wrote about seeing Jesus personally, or ever wrote about any miracles he performed. There is no record of the resurrection of the Saints near the end of Christs time on Earth, no record of a rent veil in the Temple, and the eclipse that Tallus mentions was an actual eclipse and not a darkness lasting three hours as it says in the Gospels.
The accusation may be the case; however, the accuser makes no direct, specified conclusion from this, probably because much of the history of the world at that time and before was treated in the same fashion: recorded by educated historians (if at all) who were not necessarily present at the time, but who honestly chronicled the events based on their contacts and investigations. These do exist. So the allegation, made in an historical vacuum, is intended to throw doubt where it is not warranted; i.e. it is prejudicial and without any direct evidence demonstrating his actual claim, which is the non-existence of Jesus.
If it occurred today, the media would ignore it completely, and any mention of it would be decried as insanity, and would be suppressed with ridicule (and probably assaults on the reputations of the Marys). That’s just today in our “enlightened” society. What should we expect looking back into the Jewish hatred and the Roman disconnect and suppression regarding these events?
This question is merely an attempt to imply illegitimacy without having to prove it. In other words, it is a rhetorical smear, not a grouping of empirical facts which directly contradict any Christian claims whatsoever. So the question itself, in this context at least, is itself illegitimate. Only if he can prove that this particular accusation is proof of something specific regarding his target, can the allegation be considered meaningful. But he cannot prove or even demonstrate that.
And no one knows who Shakespeare was. That fact means nothing regarding the existence of Shakespeare.
These are from a guy on John Loftus' blog? Oh, brother. Yeah, that's a bastion of Atheistic intelligence (lol).
Post a Comment