Forgeries in the NT

[RoadRunner79]

I like those contradiction websites.  I like them, because most of try way too hard to make contradictions where there are not any

What I love more is the mental acrobatics apologists preform to make them not seem like contradictions . They seem to rely on a lazy hand waving rather then having a good case .

Would you like to discuss what is "mental acrobatics" in my answers, and what you describe as just hand waving. Something which is falsifiable perhaps, and not just stating opinion?

Or we could look at the definition of contradiction and present a case, that the examples do not fit?

[Amarok]

Uh huh sure road

[RoadRunner79]

No problem, that's what I thought...perhaps next time!

[Minimalist]

However, I think that the only issue here, lies with the assumptions. 

These are your fucking books, dummy.  I don't consider them "inspired" or "inerrant" or "written by the fucking finger of god."  This is one crap story written by some jackoff and expanded and amended by three others and probably a whole host of editors down through the centuries.

[Amarok]

However, I think that the only issue here, lies with the assumptions. 

Nope the issue is the evidence and elaborate dance apologists preform to muddy the waters and hide in said mud.

[RoadRunner79]

However, I think that the only issue here, lies with the assumptions. 

These are your fucking books, dummy.  I don't consider them "inspired" or "inerrant" or "written by the fucking finger of god." 

Ok.... so your peculiar reference to contradictions in these would seem to make less since as an atheist. Under any normal circumstance, as I argued before, I don't think there is any contradiction (unless you add an argument from silence which is unwarranted and unusual).

Do you think you place odd expectations here... some kind of reverse atheist fundamentalism?

[Astonished]

You say that as if that's a change from how you normally interpret anything an atheist says about your silly bedtime stories. That's just your default state, RR, so why ask as though there were an alternative?

No.... not really my default state.  However with some, my suspicions are higher than others.   I normally try to look at the facts and reasons behind what is being said, not assume motives or attack the origins of the claim. It's about what they have to say, not who is saying it. And if I am misunderstanding something or do fall into rhetoric, in which I am interpreting something in a less than charitable way....just correct me; and we'll move on.

You are a goddamn fucking liar. You cannot possibly create a thread touting testimony as evidence and believe this statement to be true at the same time. That is the kind of mental gymnastics we're talking about. You have to force your mind to jump through hoops and run as fast as it can to keep this contradiction (among what have to be countless others) from catching up to you, and it's pretty fucking obvious what that is doing to your mental state. At best, you make a special pleading fallacy so you can have a special exception for your pet myth but that's not how reality fucking works. Your problem is viewing things in far too charitable of a way in your singular case (the religion test, where the same level of scrutiny is applied to other religions besides your own, would prove you're guilty of a confirmation bias, not that we needed any further proof of that after all the crap you've spewed) and dismissing everything else outright that conflicts with it. Of course you're going to be called out on your dishonesty, deliberate or otherwise, because it's still bullshit. It's not just that your claims are faulty-they are as faulty as it is possible for a claim to be.

[Amarok]

No.... not really my default state.  However with some, my suspicions are higher than others.   I normally try to look at the facts and reasons behind what is being said, not assume motives or attack the origins of the claim. It's about what they have to say, not who is saying it. And if I am misunderstanding something or do fall into rhetoric, in which I am interpreting something in a less than charitable way....just correct me; and we'll move on.

You are a goddamn fucking liar. You cannot possibly create a thread touting testimony as evidence and believe this statement to be true at the same time. That is the kind of mental gymnastics we're talking about. You have to force your mind to jump through hoops and run as fast as it can to keep this contradiction (among what have to be countless others) from catching up to you, and it's pretty fucking obvious what that is doing to your mental state. At best, you make a special pleading fallacy so you can have a special exception for your pet myth but that's not how reality fucking works. Your problem is viewing things in far too charitable of a way in your singular case (the religion test, where the same level of scrutiny is applied to other religions besides your own, would prove you're guilty of a confirmation bias, not that we needed any further proof of that after all the crap you've spewed) and dismissing everything else outright that conflicts with it. Of course you're going to be called out on your dishonesty, deliberate or otherwise, because it's still bullshit. It's not just that your claims are faulty-they are as faulty as it is possible for a claim to be.

Well said

[Succubus]

So counting is a challenge for you, eh RR.  Not surprising.

No... generally I don't have an issue counting, especially when it is within the range of fingers and toes for reference.

However, I think that the only issue here, lies with the assumptions. 

Say you ask me, what I did the other night.  I tell you , that me and my girlfriend went out to eat, and to the movies.   Later you ask the girlfriend, and she tells you that we went to the movies, with Bob and Suzy (does not mention going out to eat).  And you find out on facebook, that Bob reports that we went to the movies with us, and also  includes some others, who we met there by chance.

There is not a contradiction or a problem in these various accounts.  Some may have more information, or some didn't include things others did.  Different people may give different accounts, with a different focus (at times choosing to give or withhold information for whatever reason, or without any reason at all)  There is no need to make this into a contradiction or a problem; and unless it was specified, it's not justified to insert into any silence, that which makes it contradictory or an issue. 

In normal rational, there is no need, to imply an issue with the statements together even though they may differ in the information given.  Again, we seem to run into the issue, from the argument from silence, and making assumptions about what is not said.

Evidently you are new to this apologetics caper. Instead of posting that drivel, what you sound have said was:

Resolving the differences in the number of women listed is straightforward. At least five women went to the tomb, since Luke names three of them and then says “other women” went too (at least two). Notice that Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. Although John names only Mary Magdalene, he is clearly aware that she was not alone. Reporting to Peter and John, she said, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him”

You see? This how the pro's rationalize problems away.

[RoadRunner79]

---

No... generally I don't have an issue counting, especially when it is within the range of fingers and toes for reference.

However, I think that the only issue here, lies with the assumptions. 

Say you ask me, what I did the other night.  I tell you , that me and my girlfriend went out to eat, and to the movies.   Later you ask the girlfriend, and she tells you that we went to the movies, with Bob and Suzy (does not mention going out to eat).  And you find out on facebook, that Bob reports that we went to the movies with us, and also  includes some others, who we met there by chance.

There is not a contradiction or a problem in these various accounts.  Some may have more information, or some didn't include things others did.  Different people may give different accounts, with a different focus (at times choosing to give or withhold information for whatever reason, or without any reason at all)  There is no need to make this into a contradiction or a problem; and unless it was specified, it's not justified to insert into any silence, that which makes it contradictory or an issue. 

In normal rational, there is no need, to imply an issue with the statements together even though they may differ in the information given.  Again, we seem to run into the issue, from the argument from silence, and making assumptions about what is not said.

Evidently you are new to this apologetics caper. Instead of posting that drivel, what you sound have said was:

Resolving the differences in the number of women listed is straightforward. At least five women went to the tomb, since Luke names three of them and then says “other women” went too (at least two). Notice that Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. Although John names only Mary Magdalene, he is clearly aware that she was not alone. Reporting to Peter and John, she said, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him”

---

You see? This how the pro's rationalize problems away.

Yes, it seems that we are saying much the same thing. Do you think that it is incorrect or unjustified? If you like you can respond to either as to why you think as you do... whether you choose the one you think is better or the one you think is the weaker argument. I do t think it meets the description to be called a contradiction, except perhaps if you don't look at it very closely.