RE: Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?
September 13, 2017 at 6:31 am
(This post was last modified: September 13, 2017 at 6:55 am by SteveII.)
(September 12, 2017 at 5:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(September 11, 2017 at 4:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: Mormons, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Joseph Smith's head?
Jospeh Smith was an eye witness to the miracle of the golden tablets, has second hand testimony from angels, and we have secondary evidence that Joseph Smith was indeed the author of the material -- that's something we don't have for any of the alleged authors of the bible, nobody can verify that 1 Peter was written by Peter. You're treating the evidence of the religion of Mormonism according to a different standard than your own. When Joseph Smith offers eye witness testimony, then it's all in his head. When an anonymous author of the bible offers second hand testimony, why then it's "paleographic gold". That's de facto an example of you special pleading the evidence of Christianity. When you dismiss other religions for reasons that you don't equally apply to your own, that sure as hell is special pleading. A similar argument could be made for Mohammed.
Your comparison is way way off. Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of.
The 9 authors of the NT wrote down what happened in public. Tens of thousands of people would have been affected in some way by the events they relate. We have historical evidence that some significant number of people acted on their belief that the events of the NT happened (even before the gospels were written): there are churches across the Roman Empire before 50 AD. 1 Peter? Are you kidding me? That's 5 chapters out of 260.
In addition, your use of the term 'anonymous' is inaccurate and often used in an attempt to poison the well. Do you actually think that the people who received the first copies of the gospels received them on their doorsteps and did not know where they came from? Get real. They would have known exactly who the editor was and where the information came from. The name of the editor is unimportant to pass along. The only concern was the apostle's name who provided the input.
So, your comparison is nonsense and your charge of special pleading unsupported.
