Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics

[The Grand Nudger]

Except for the episcopalians, who officially espouse the doctrine of the Trinity as far as I can tell, I definitely feel that these denominations embrace an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ.

Not -your- version of the trinity....even "the trinity" has many interpretations, and they don't require that anyone even hold -that- position (they're comfortable with anyone who professes faith in jesus christ - the rest creates useless division, to their "official" minds). I'm glad you finally saw the light, though. Now if only the rest of you would.

Those non-trinitarians, btw, will point to scripture all...day...long (trinitarianism doesn't come from the bible, it comes from christian culture). Many of them feel that you are a pagan. You'd balk at such an implication, I'm sure (and not without justification). In the spirit of christian brotherhood, I think that you should all recognize that your positions are on equal ground. I see no reason for you to include Episcolpalians (horseshoes and hand grenades) but exclude Unitarians (these guys are just non-literalists...you don't have a problem with that, right?), LDS (nutballs, admittedly, but christian nutballs nonetheless) or Witnesses(their organization is pure cult...but you won't find an un-biblical bone in it's body), for example. Quakers....anybody who won't tent up with a quaker is bad news....even I like quakers...lol. Within the trinatarian sub-tent...you'll actually find that there are still differences and nuance in various sects christology, btw, and all of this is ignoring the fact that individual believers don't always believe everything exactly as the boss tells it, eh?

(I'm sitting here reading all the shitty things that CARM has to say about Witnesses, for example, thinking to myself...."doesn't this fucker realize that all of his criticism of them apply equally to any denomination - including his own? -I'd be a good CARM writer....it would seem, and that's telling)

[Lek]

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.

You're just typed 10,000 words, none of which show conclusive evidence that the biblical writings are untrue. Sure you've stated opinions of qualified historians and scholars and then passed them off as demonstrating that your assertions are true. You've attempted to qualify your supposition that christian writers were biased, and therefore lying, and the same for oral tradition, but again what proof do you have of this? Are the teams of qualified historians and bible scholars, who disagree with your assumptions, that have written the commentaries in the numerous modern day bibles biased liars also? I'm just taking one example from your post. Philo lived in Alexandria all of his life. He did mention in his writings that he visited Jerusalem, but never stated how long he spent there or the specific time frame. In fact, we know almost nothing of the details of his life. Show the words from Philo's writings that state that he was present in Jerusalem during the crucifixion, resurrection, etc., especially when we're not even sure of the dates?

[goodwithoutgod]

[robvalue]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

[dyresand]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

Its like....


The hole real life.
The square all theistic world views.

[goodwithoutgod]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

I know right? I love that approach, here let me try:

Actually you have to trace life back to Uranus...you see, Uranus is hollow, and full of little purple men who ride unicorns. They feed these unicorns magic beans, so that the unicorns fart fairy dust. This fairy dust is collected and boiled in the great sky cauldron...then bottled in invisible bottle rockets that are catapulted through space to earth...and these bottles shatter upon entering the earth's atmosphere and upon a human's birth, form its soul. Can you disprove this? No? That is because it must be true!

[robvalue]

I can't disprove it man. Good job.

[Lek]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

Yes. But also referencing a bunch of controversial findings, and forming an opinion based on that evidence, is conjecture. You can say that "based on the following evidence, I believe that the gospels are fiction." But if there are many other experts in the field that disagree and your evidence is not conclusive, then I object to you presenting your opinion as if it is fact. I always say "I believe in God or I believe in Jesus." I believe it's true, but I can't presume it's true for arguments sake, because there is also evidence used to refute it.

[goodwithoutgod]

[robvalue]

Lek, what opinion am I stating as fact? You just literally repeated your argument from ignorance. You choose to believe it, and no one can prove it false. There is no evidence for it, just a lack of evidence against it.