(April 4, 2013 at 12:24 am)radorth Wrote:

(April 3, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm thinking you should read up a little more on the burden of proof before trying to lecture others on the rules of logic and what they must prove. He specifically said, "Christianity fails to substantiate even the most basic of it's[sic] claims." Nowhere did he claim the bible writers are liars, so your insistence that he prove that is worthless and empty.

The claim they are liars is obviously implicit. If they are not liars, then you have more than sufficient proof.

I don't think it was ever about lying or not. Take the Aztecs for example. Are they to blame for thinking that the conquistadors were the incarnate ghosts of their ancestors? If they wrote an account of their encounters with what they would claim as the "incarnate ghosts of our forefathers", they wouldn't be "liars" as such. All we can conclude is that their understanding of reality is limited and shallow, which is understandable. If we keep this in mind and turn our attention to the Bible, then it's somewhat understandable that people believed in far-fetched superstitions.

---

(April 3, 2013 at 11:37 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(March 30, 2013 at 12:58 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Utilitarianism is a philosophy fit for factory owners.

Could you explain what you mean by this? (I think you may have it backwards)

I think jstrodel is demonstrating his lack of understanding once again. Utilitarianism was a philosophy made popular by Mr. Bentham during the industrial revolution. How this means factory owners are pro-utilitarian... beats me.

(April 4, 2013 at 12:24 am)radorth Wrote: The claim they are liars is obviously implicit. If they are not liars, then you have more than sufficient proof.

Sufficiency is often subject to the quality of one's standards; obviously yours is lower than ours.

(April 4, 2013 at 12:24 am)radorth Wrote: The claim they are liars is obviously implicit. If they are not liars, then you have more than sufficient proof.

No, it is not implicit. They could believe they are telling the truth but still be wrong. If you think determining they are not liars(how you would do that, I don't know) is sufficient proof, you need to look up the words "sufficient" and "proof" before throwing them around again.

A factory owner that ran his factory according to utilitarian principles would probably make a great employer - his profits might suffer a little for it though, lol.

(April 4, 2013 at 8:25 am)Faith No More Wrote: No, it is not implicit. They could believe they are telling the truth but still be wrong. If you think determining they are not liars(how you would do that, I don't know) is sufficient proof, you need to look up the words "sufficient" and "proof" before throwing them around again.

So they thought they saw a man's limb grow out, crazy and blind people instantly cured, Lazareth raised, and were simply mistaken?

Right. Sorry, they either saw it or they were liars and you well know there is no choice as you claim, if you have the powers of reason you claim.

(April 5, 2013 at 1:15 am)radorth Wrote: So they thought they saw a man's limb grow out, crazy and blind people instantly cured, Lazareth raised, and were simply mistaken?

Right. Sorry, they either saw it or they were liars and you well know there is no choice as you claim, if you have the powers of reason you claim.

All I have to say in response to that is that there are still thousands of gullible idiots who are taken in and fleeced by charismatic and fraudulent faith healers in the year 2013, when everybody should know better.

(April 5, 2013 at 1:15 am)radorth Wrote:

(April 4, 2013 at 8:25 am)Faith No More Wrote: No, it is not implicit. They could believe they are telling the truth but still be wrong. If you think determining they are not liars(how you would do that, I don't know) is sufficient proof, you need to look up the words "sufficient" and "proof" before throwing them around again.

So they thought they saw a man's limb grow out, crazy and blind people instantly cured, Lazareth raised, and were simply mistaken?

Right. Sorry, they either saw it or they were liars and you well know there is no choice as you claim, if you have the powers of reason you claim.

Correction, they thought they heard someone say they saw those things happen. Your cherished NT Gospels aren't witness accounts. Never forget that.

Luke went out and interviewed people. He asked the witnesses and made a document for a guy named/nicknamed Theophilus. So Luke isn't exactly witness accounts, but it is the combination of witness accounts.

The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

The apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

Mark was one of the 70 not-as-close disciples of Jesus.

(April 6, 2013 at 12:56 am)Tex Wrote: Luke went out and interviewed people. He asked the witnesses and made a document for a guy named/nicknamed Theophilus. So Luke isn't exactly witness accounts, but it is the combination of witness accounts.

The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

The apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

Mark was one of the 70 not-as-close disciples of Jesus.

Well done in relaying what Tradition says.

With Mark being the first Gospel written, why did "Matthew", a supposed witness, feel the need to use the content in Mark as opposed to his own eyewitness testimony? Why is it written in third person?

John is a clear example of rumours being hyped up, which indicates it couldn't have been an eyewitness who wrote it, otherwise we wouldn't see this clear exaggeration in e.g. theology.

FallentoReason Wrote:Well done in relaying what Tradition says.

Any time.

FallentoReason Wrote:With Mark being the first Gospel written, why did "Matthew", a supposed witness, feel the need to use the content in Mark as opposed to his own eyewitness testimony? Why is it written in third person?

Mark was the account already written. He could have simply not wanted to repeat a story already told in another way. Mark was the historical account and first written. Matthew was trying to convert Jews. Matthew is laced with OT references and genealogies and prophesies fulfilled and whatnot that the Jews at the time loved.

Mark never mentions himself. John never mentions himself. Matthew doesn't either. This wasn't a letter, it was a book to tell the story.

FallentoReason Wrote:John is a clear example of rumours being hyped up, which indicates it couldn't have been an eyewitness who wrote it, otherwise we wouldn't see this clear exaggeration in e.g. theology.

Do you believe all the conspiracy websites? Perhaps those websites are a conspiracy themselves...

Anyway, the reason you say John has "hyped up rumors" must be because you really want there to be a flaw, because this is quite the stretch. Lets put this book at 100 A.D. to make this easy. You're going to tell me, that rumors got hyped up so amazingly high within the course of 60-70 years, that some guy wrote a book in which the dude claims to be God... and everyone believes it? Wouldn't most of the people be able to ask their friend about the dude? So there is a group that starts making racket about this guy, and no one stops and thinks, "I should probably ask people who were also there"? Such a stretch.