[quote='RAD' pid='88364' dateline='1282405871']
[quote]That's an obvious straw man argument. I said nothing about turns of phrase. A similie is a similie in any language.[/quote]
A simile proves nothing. It's a fairly basic linguistic device anyway, but even good similes are a long way from proving Jesus' divinity.
[quote]I believe the Gospels for the same reasons the agnostic historian Durant believes them. [/quote]
If he believes them, why is he agnostic?
[quote]He calls the contradictions "minutae." BTW I don't quite buy Matthew's "walking dead" report. I believe it is probably hearsay he heard and thought was true. It is also so fantastic that other narrators would have reported it as well. But then I don't know and I don't make the gross logical error of "false in one part so false in all." If half of Mark is true, Jesus is who he said and he is savior of the world, you see.[/quote]
Simple solution: none of Mark is true... or, at least, not the supernatural bits. This seems an obvious option, given that you've dismissed the walking dead report. Plus, with something as big as Jesus' resurrection, why does no secular historian mention it?
[quote]The point of the thread is that at least half of atheists don't think logically, and make up stuff as they go, no more or less.[/quote]
That's probably true. Most of us are prone to erroneous thinking. Theists are best at it, though.
[quote]That's an obvious straw man argument. I said nothing about turns of phrase. A similie is a similie in any language.[/quote]
A simile proves nothing. It's a fairly basic linguistic device anyway, but even good similes are a long way from proving Jesus' divinity.
[quote]I believe the Gospels for the same reasons the agnostic historian Durant believes them. [/quote]
If he believes them, why is he agnostic?
[quote]He calls the contradictions "minutae." BTW I don't quite buy Matthew's "walking dead" report. I believe it is probably hearsay he heard and thought was true. It is also so fantastic that other narrators would have reported it as well. But then I don't know and I don't make the gross logical error of "false in one part so false in all." If half of Mark is true, Jesus is who he said and he is savior of the world, you see.[/quote]
Simple solution: none of Mark is true... or, at least, not the supernatural bits. This seems an obvious option, given that you've dismissed the walking dead report. Plus, with something as big as Jesus' resurrection, why does no secular historian mention it?
[quote]The point of the thread is that at least half of atheists don't think logically, and make up stuff as they go, no more or less.[/quote]
That's probably true. Most of us are prone to erroneous thinking. Theists are best at it, though.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
