Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

Perhaps a refresher...

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

The only circumstances that were similar in this situation were that something was written. Everything else was different. So, we have one similarity and hundreds of dissimilarities. Therefore the circumstance were not even close to being similar and therefore no special pleading can occur.

They are literally the same thing. Joseph Smith makes claims of visions and conversations with God and claims to have been divinely-inspired to write about Jesus. Saul of Tarsus does literally the exact same thing. One is accepted, the other not. Both have the same level, type, and quantity of evidence to back-up their claims (none at all).

So yeah, it is literally a textbook example of special pleading. Thank you for demonstrating it well  

Two things wrong with that statement.

1. Paul's letters where on Christian living--not original statements of fact on the life of Jesus or other historical instruction (as Joseph Smith's were full of). 
2. Where did Paul claim even his instructions on Christian living were divinely inspired? 

Again, the comparisons are not there.

---

Steve, what evidence lead you to these two beliefs, and why do you find that evidence persuasive?

The quote you were referring to was about Paul. Even Bart Ehrman firmly believes Paul was real and wrote most of the epistles ascribed to him. He also believes the the NT is 99% today what it was when it was written.

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, so 'gullible' it REALLY is then, Huggy.  People saw it with their own eyes after they were explicitly directed to do so.  The pastor literally TELLS the audience that there is a light hovering over someone's head, and he doesn't even stop there.  He baldly suggests to them,  "just like in the picture," specifically so that none of his rapt believers miss the biblical parallel he's trying to draw. This is common stage hypnotism.  Highly suggestable folks who are eager to believe are easy to manipulate.

Shame on you for being taken by such foolishness.  Please, quit while your behind.

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE!

You're right.  Light explains the picture of...light.  

You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device

No, but you can psychologically fool gullible people.  Especially if you have strong motivation to do so.

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

It was light, says your scientist.  Light is pretty natural last I checked.   And, your witnesses didn't spontaneously see light.  It was baldly suggested to them.  No, that's not suspicious at all, given the circumstances.     You realize there exists a body of scientific evidence which demonstrates individuals, especially highly suggestable individuals can see/here/feel things that aren't there, right?  Dare I ask what you think of Fatima?

you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Your own reference explained the picture.   It was fucking light.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

There is nothing here that requires debunking, Huggy.  We've already put forward several natural, more probable explanations for this ridiculous claim than "God-magic."  That's all we need to reasonably dismiss it.  It's not my problem you have no actual evidence of the supernatural.

And to answer your earlier question:

Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?

Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

Well, sure.  When all your reasoning begins with the unevidenced assertion, "the Bible is true," I'm sure you can find lots of stuff after the fact that appears to fit its narrative.  Retroactively shoehorning natural phenomena into cryptic, ill-defined prose written thousands of years ago is not hard.  "The Bible is god's word because it says so in the Bible" is circular reasoning, Hugz. Next.

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

Good for him.  I'd like to ask him the same questions I've asked you.  

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

So?  You think that is evidence of something?  I've been abducted by aliens all my life.  Believe me?

I'll be back to address the rest of this shit show later when I've got a few minutes.

[TheBeardedDude]

They are literally the same thing. Joseph Smith makes claims of visions and conversations with God and claims to have been divinely-inspired to write about Jesus. Saul of Tarsus does literally the exact same thing. One is accepted, the other not. Both have the same level, type, and quantity of evidence to back-up their claims (none at all).

So yeah, it is literally a textbook example of special pleading. Thank you for demonstrating it well  

Two things wrong with that statement.

1. Paul's letters where on Christian living--not original statements of fact on the life of Jesus or other historical instruction (as Joseph Smith's were full of). 
2. Where did Paul claim even his instructions on Christian living were divinely inspired? 

Again, the comparisons are not there.

---

Steve, what evidence lead you to these two beliefs, and why do you find that evidence persuasive?

The quote you were referring to was about Paul. Even Bart Ehrman firmly believes Paul was real and wrote most of the epistles ascribed to him. He also believes the the NT is 99% today what it was when it was written.

Oh look, more special pleading. What a surprise. 

Who founded the Christian church. Jesus or Paul?

[Pat Mustard]

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then?  Where did Steve go all of a sudden?  Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears.  Not that I blame him.  Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

He told me that he wasn't going to reply to me anymore when I posed his own bullshit back to him with respect to Saul of Tarsus (drawing the comparison between Saul and Joseph Smith). Christians don't like it when you point out there special pleading, this thread is a testament to that!

Well Steve does show a well turned pair of heels. He's being running away from my posts for ages, simply because I insulted him though posting refutations of his arguments he couldn't answer.

[TheBeardedDude]

He told me that he wasn't going to reply to me anymore when I posed his own bullshit back to him with respect to Saul of Tarsus (drawing the comparison between Saul and Joseph Smith). Christians don't like it when you point out there special pleading, this thread is a testament to that!

Well Steve does show a well turned pair of heels. He's being running away from my posts for ages, simply because I insulted him though posting refutations of his arguments he couldn't answer.

And he is replying to me again too. He can't keep any of his own promises (engages in special pleading, replies when he says he won't) 

[Pat Mustard]

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then?  Where did Steve go all of a sudden?  Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears.  Not that I blame him.  Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

What specific, non-fringe, comment about Paul would you like to see an answer to? 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establish...eliability

Steve have you anything other than WLC saying "the bible is true because god told me", because even in the more credulous wings of biblical scholarship he is known as an idiot with no authority.

---

Perhaps a refresher...

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

The only circumstances that were similar in this situation were that something was written. Everything else was different. So, we have one similarity and hundreds of dissimilarities. Therefore the circumstance were not even close to being similar and therefore no special pleading can occur.

They are literally the same thing. Joseph Smith makes claims of visions and conversations with God and claims to have been divinely-inspired to write about Jesus. Saul of Tarsus does literally the exact same thing. One is accepted, the other not. Both have the same level, type, and quantity of evidence to back-up their claims (none at all).

So yeah, it is literally a textbook example of special pleading. Thank you for demonstrating it well 

---

That sounds like a claim, in need of support.

What "claim" are you referring to? The paucity of contemporary accounts of Jesus? I've never encountered any. The closest anyone seems to be able to get is a reference by Josephus (who doesn't provide any corroborative details of the gospel accounts), who never met Jesus and never witnessed anything Jesus did (so not a contemporary source). Saul of Tarsus lived at least a generation after Jesus died, so he's not a contemporary. And while the gospels exist, the earliest any of them has been dated to (as far as I am aware) is ~70CE, so none of the gospels are contemporary accounts in any verifiable way (and we don't even know who wrote much of them).

Josephus doesn't count as the passages mentioning Jesus have been conclusively proven to be later interpolations inserted in the 4th cenury by Eusebius (their use as "independent testimony" was destroyed in the 19th century when textual analysis showed the style of writing to be much different to Josephus' own and the words in the passages to be anachronistic to late 1st century).

[Minimalist]

Bauckham has surveyed every datum that suggests direct continuity between eyewitnesses of a historical Jesus and the New Testament Gospels,
demonstrating that a significant number of the proto-orthodox Christians known to us (e.g. Papias, Polycarp, the [final] authors of the Gospel of John
and the Gospel of Luke) attempted to inculcate among their followers a strong belief that such continuity existed. He concludes that the Gospel
narratives can be identified with a genre he calls ‘testimony’, and suggests that historians who require triangulation of independent streams of data
are overly sceptical.22 If the data include ‘participant eyewitness testimony’, the historian should suspend skepticism and trust the testimony. Bauckham
introduces testimonies from Holocaust survivors to illustrate his point, which is an unfortunate choice, since the example clarifies the fallacy he
commits.23 We trust the testimony of an Auschwitz survivor because similar atrocities are documented by other means (e.g. the facilities at Auschwitz,
Nazi records) and because the eyewitness testimony never invokes elements of the supernatural. The usual method of seeking triangulation from
independent streams of data is upheld, not undermined, in Bauckham’s example. By contrast, the New Testament narratives, if viewed as testimony,
ask us to trust a narrative for which there is no external evidence and which expects us to believe that a man was conceived by parthenogenesis, walked on water, rose from the grave and ascended into the sky on a cloud.


- K. L. Noll in "Is This Not The Carpenter's Son  pg 239-40   (Bolding added)

And who is K. L. Noll?

K. L. Noll, is an American biblical scholar, historian, educator and author. He is currently Associate Professor and Chair of the Religion Department at Brandon University in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada where he teaches Judaism, Christianity, biblical languages and Islam. He holds a PhD and a Master of Theology from Union Theological Seminary in Virginia (now called Union Presbyterian Seminary), as well a Master of Arts (Honors) from Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg and a Bachelor of Arts (Summa Cum Laude) from Shippensburg University

He dismantles the silly jesus freak argument that the stories in their fucking bible should be taken at face value because they are based on "testimony."

[TheBeardedDude]

What specific, non-fringe, comment about Paul would you like to see an answer to? 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establish...eliability

Steve have you anything other than WLC saying "the bible is true because god told me", because even in the more credulous wings of biblical scholarship he is known as an idiot with no authority.

---

They are literally the same thing. Joseph Smith makes claims of visions and conversations with God and claims to have been divinely-inspired to write about Jesus. Saul of Tarsus does literally the exact same thing. One is accepted, the other not. Both have the same level, type, and quantity of evidence to back-up their claims (none at all).

So yeah, it is literally a textbook example of special pleading. Thank you for demonstrating it well 

---

What "claim" are you referring to? The paucity of contemporary accounts of Jesus? I've never encountered any. The closest anyone seems to be able to get is a reference by Josephus (who doesn't provide any corroborative details of the gospel accounts), who never met Jesus and never witnessed anything Jesus did (so not a contemporary source). Saul of Tarsus lived at least a generation after Jesus died, so he's not a contemporary. And while the gospels exist, the earliest any of them has been dated to (as far as I am aware) is ~70CE, so none of the gospels are contemporary accounts in any verifiable way (and we don't even know who wrote much of them).

Josephus doesn't count as the passages mentioning Jesus have been conclusively proven to be later interpolations inserted in the 4th cenury by Eusebius (their use as "independent testimony" was destroyed in the 19th century when textual analysis showed the style of writing to be much different to Josephus' own and the words in the passages to be anachronistic to late 1st century).

Even assuming that Josephus wrote about Jesus and that those passages weren't inserted later, it still doesn't bolster Christian claims with respect to Jesus. A guy named Yeshua (a common name that is translated as Joshua for everyone but Jesus it seems) lived between the years 0 and 35CE, and? That's like saying that because Bob is a common name, we should believe any fantastical stories written about a Bob if we can verify that a guy named Bob did in fact live during the time the stories take place.

[Whateverist]

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.

Oliver Cowdery

Fall on your knees for the god of Mormon. How can any not accept such fine evidence?

[TheBeardedDude]

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.

Oliver Cowdery

Fall on your knees for the god of Mormon.  How can any not accept such fine evidence?

This evidence is so evidence, it would be insane to not call it evidence


/s