Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[Randy Carson]

I ask myself that every time I read the posts from some members of this forum.

Do you ever wonder why you're not taken seriously here?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Yeah, right?  Either the disciples were irretrievably stupid, afflicted with some strange group amnesia, or really badly written characters.

None of the above.....they're serving the function of the greek chorus....I was only half joking earlier.  They halt the narrative, they interrupt and bring the audience in, pointing out the important bits of the narrative incase you'd...oh...IDK....fallen asleep.....

The people who wrote the NT were steeped in greek literary device.  Had they not intended to port it in, they would have done so by accident (just as authors do today with the tropes and devices common to our narrative styles - even when they make a conscious effort not to).  It's just the way that stories were told, and we tell stories the way that we do because it is effective to do so.  This device seems ridiculous to us simply because -we- have changed, we prefer our stories told a different way, those old devices have, through centuries of repeated use...lost some of their oomph (though by no means all).

Another fine example is the census.  We need to get the godmans mommy to the right place......dues ex machina.  A situation wherein we need to move the narrative past an obstacle that the protagonists would have either no means or no motive of resolving themselves.  The authors either intentionally or -accidentally- wrote a novel, rather than a biography (as so often happens to this very day).

That's an interesting analysis.  Good thinking.

[Tonus]

1. You're right. After the crucifixion, I think the apostles were in shock...and this despite Jesus' promises AND the miracles they had seen. That seems kinda normal to me and lends some credibility to the whole thing by virtue of the criterion of embarrassment. IOW, the apostles didn't try to hide the fact that they had doubts; they were honest about it...which is sort of embarrassing if you're telling everyone that you spent three years with God. And you still lacked faith? Ouch!

Not only would it be embarrassing to spend three years with god and lack faith, it's almost inexplicable. It's more of the pattern that I see in the Bible, where ordinary people experience transcendent things, and a surprising number of them seem utterly unimpressed. Three years of watching Jesus do and say so many things that John ends his gospel by claiming that he 'didn't think there were enough books in the world to write them all down.' Jesus explains to them several times that he will die and return shortly after, and this concept is so foreign to them that when it happens they're dumbstruck? These were men who, in some cases, immediately dropped what they were doing when Jesus first called on them to become his followers. But after three years of having that intuition reinforced, they become bumbling and confused dimwits? It doesn't make sense.

[Cato]

Hey.  Your boytoy "mark" claimed that after the women ran away they said "nothing."  Are you calling "mark" a liar?

Randy,

I ponied up the same thing on the first page of the thread. Any chance you'll get around to addressing it?

[Chas]

A guy named Thomas thought the same way. Right up until the moment that he put his fingers into the nail wounds in Jesus' hands.

And in the story, Thomas gets the evidence he needs to believe, but is painted as 'lesser' for requiring more evidence than his mates. If I wanted people to believe a false story I knew I couldn't support and wasn't very scrupulous, I would add a 'Doubting Thomas' to it and make out like it was a little silly for him to actually want evidence. It's been awhile since I read any of his stuff, but I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith used a similar literary device.

Part of the problem here is, you wouldn't think that 'Some guy in my sales pitch was just like you and didn't believe my product worked, but he sure found out it really works! You don't want to be like that overly-skeptical dude, do you?' was convincing in any other context. Or if you would, maybe we can meet and I can sell you some stuff you didn't even know you needed.

Yes, that is the well-known scam of using a shill to help the con.

[downbeatplumb]

It's a very good point. It reminds me of watching that guy Dynamo. His tricks are simply stunning. Some are obviously some sort of rig job and it's hard to understand, but some are sleight of hand that beggar belief. The problem is, after you've seen him do a few of them, you get used to it. Impressive though the tricks are, you expect it of him. You don't get the same level of absolute shock all over again.

The biggest surprise must have been seeing him lay down and be killed while having all that supposed power. Erm, Jesus that is.

Yeah they would have been expecting some sort of Houdiniesque escape.

[Esquilax]

Wow. Pointing to one bit of a story to evidence another bit of the story. How old do you think we are, Randy?

I ask myself that every time I read the posts from some members of this forum.

Right, so, the questions I asked you on page one, about your little tantrum; are you ever going to answer them? Or are you going to go from toddler tantrum to running away?

Boy, sure showing us how mature you are there.

[robvalue]

Can I prove Lord of the Rings happened by appealing to how many orcs Aragorn killed, or how Gandalf predicted Golum's important part to play?

And why would Boromir give his life to protect the fellowship if he knew the ring wasn't real?

How does not knowing who wrote the bible make it more reliable? Less, I'd say.

[Randy Carson]

1. You're right. After the crucifixion, I think the apostles were in shock...and this despite Jesus' promises AND the miracles they had seen. That seems kinda normal to me and lends some credibility to the whole thing by virtue of the criterion of embarrassment. IOW, the apostles didn't try to hide the fact that they had doubts; they were honest about it...which is sort of embarrassing if you're telling everyone that you spent three years with God. And you still lacked faith? Ouch!

Not only would it be embarrassing to spend three years with god and lack faith, it's almost inexplicable.  It's more of the pattern that I see in the Bible, where ordinary people experience transcendent things, and a surprising number of them seem utterly unimpressed.  Three years of watching Jesus do and say so many things that John ends his gospel by claiming that he 'didn't think there were enough books in the world to write them all down.'  Jesus explains to them several times that he will die and return shortly after, and this concept is so foreign to them that when it happens they're dumbstruck?  These were men who, in some cases, immediately dropped what they were doing when Jesus first called on them to become his followers.  But after three years of having that intuition reinforced, they become bumbling and confused dimwits?  It doesn't make sense.

And after the day of Pentecost?

They went out and turned the world upside down. How did that happen?

[Randy Carson]

Hey.  Your boytoy "mark" claimed that after the women ran away they said "nothing."  Are you calling "mark" a liar?

Randy,

I ponied up the same thing on the first page of the thread. Any chance you'll get around to addressing it?

Is it your opinion that Mark knew nothing of the resurrection despite travelling with both Peter and Paul at various times?