Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Minimalist]

So, Huggy, did Emperor Vespasian cure blindness and a crippled hand or not?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...g=original

In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the com- mon people of Alexandria, well-known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Cæsar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacles were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Cæsar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

P. Cornelius Tacitus  Annales  Book IV  Ch 81

Also recounted by C. Suetonius Tranquilus.  Here we have two actual historians which is far more than can be said for your silly-assed godboy.  Surely, you can't deny this evidence, can you?

[chimp3]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

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. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

First, presenting, not accepting Christian evidence is special pleading.

Second, Christian evidence, is special pleading. If, one quote says people witnessed a man turn water into wine, their work is cut out for them. First, it must be established that the witness was a real human being. It must be established that the magician who performed the trick was a real person. It must be established that the wine party actually happened. It must be established that the liquid in the urn was water. It must be established that the resulting liquid was truly wine. It must be established how water in a jar could magically become wine. 

So, yes, Christian evidence requires special pleading

[Huggy Bear]

So, Huggy, did Emperor Vespasian cure blindness and a crippled hand or not?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...g=original

In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the com- mon people of Alexandria, well-known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Cæsar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacles were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Cæsar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

P. Cornelius Tacitus  Annales  Book IV  Ch 81

Also recounted by C. Suetonius Tranquilus.  Here we have two actual historians which is far more than can be said for your silly-assed godboy.  Surely, you can't deny this evidence, can you?

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

[Ravenshire]

I'm giving this the answer it deserves...

Just as I thought...

It's funny how you guys shut up the moment anything resembling evidence is is actually produced...

Since you refuse to respond, you forfeit the privilege of requesting that any theist produce  evidence from now on.

Eyewitness testimony to delusions and bullshit count even less than 40-year after the fact hearsay. Get bent.

[Minimalist]

So, Huggy, did Emperor Vespasian cure blindness and a crippled hand or not?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...g=original



Also recounted by C. Suetonius Tranquilus.  Here we have two actual historians which is far more than can be said for your silly-assed godboy.  Surely, you can't deny this evidence, can you?

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

Then you are an idiot.

[Ravenshire]

OK, lets go with the quantity thing for now (even if it's poor quantity). Why the limit to the first century? What is your evidence that christianity has more quantity over any other religion/deity from any time in history? Do you have specific numbers or is this just your prejudiced opinion? And what exactly qualifies something to fit into your "quantity" category?

Name another religions with evidence we can compare over any time span you want. Without a comparison, we would be left with just a litany of beliefs going way back that don't add anything to the discussion.

You don't have evidence, you have hearsay.

[vorlon13]

It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling.

Actually, that is the vital point.  Some moron running around shouting that  Jesus sucked his cock might be an entertaining video but it sure as hell is not compelling evidence.

speak for yourself . . .

[Amarok]

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

Only the science in your dream land huggy

---

It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling.

Yes yes it does

---

Just as I thought...

At this point i'm surprised you can think

It's funny how you guys shut up the moment anything resembling evidence is is actually produced...

Really I must have imagined all comments after you showed your lame non evidence.

Since you refuse to respond, you forfeit the privilege of requesting that any theist produce  evidence from now on.

He responded plenty . It's not your right to give or withdraw . Now or ever .

[Ravenshire]

There was an old (as in years ago) thread where Huggy posted a video of some street preacher wannabe guy "summoning" angel UFOs upon command.  It was basically just him and a buddy screwing people over with a balloon or two.

So, the answer is yes.

Misrepresent much?

Truly fucking amazing. Shaky, blurry photography of something round in the sky! And none of his predictions have come true. Yeah, that's convincing.

[SteveII]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

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. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Yes, all the supernatural claims of any religion can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's are. As far as I can tell, no religion has what could reasonably be described as a 'body of evidence' for their supernatural claims. Which are their most central and important claims, because their claim to authority depends on having a supernatural source for it.

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims?

I'm not aware that this is the sort of thing that serious scholars of religion debate...if they did, I'm sure they'd have announced a winner by now.

If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity?

When Christians use special pleading, they use it the same way as every other theistic religion: 'My God is the exception. My God is different. My God is unique. My God is the only explanation. Their God isn't real, my God is.' [1]

 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

Christianity, of course, exists. There is ample evidence of that. If you think Christianity has special evidence for its supernatural claims that other religions do not possess, I would be interested in seeing it. If your definition of what constitutes 'more evidence' is arbitrarily picking some criteria that conveniently and arbitrarily favors Christianity, that would be some sort of fallacy, but I'm not sure it would be special pleading. I'm sure other religions would find which religion is the oldest persuasive, or which religion has the lowest body count, or which religion has the highest percentage of people willing to pierce themselves to show their faith. Whatever evidence you have that Christianity in particular is true, it should be something relevant to whether its supernatural claims are true. [2]

---

The topic is the often repeated charge that somehow Christianity is no different than any other religion and to think it is different is "special pleading". I contend that it is different in that there is more information to weigh than any other religion (by far).

Christianity is quite unique. As are all the other religions. Of course it's different from the other religions.

But if you've got actual evidence of the supernatural, I'd like to know what it is.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't have time to address every point. But here are a few comments.

1. It would only be special pleading if there was no justification for the Christian belief. I think that the significant amount of information available in the NT make a better case by far than most religions have. With this justification, there is no special pleading. 
2. I am talking about the writings of 27 sources we combined into the NT as well as dozens of other surviving documents that at least attest to a part of the overall narrative. No special criteria--just the only evidence that we could ask for from that time period for the truth of the claims of Christ--people writing about things within the lifetime of witnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. 

The statements "Christianity is true" and "there is more evidence for Christianity than any other religion" are independent of each other (a belief on one does not have an impact on the other). This discussion is on the latter. 

Lastly (and generally), the case for Christianity does not rest on one aspect (i.e. unassailable 1st century documentation). It is and always will be a cumulative case with many aspects (natural theology, message content, predisposed to the supernatural, historicity of Christ, morality, personal experience, influence of others). We are discussing one aspect and how it compares to other religions.

---

Well, except for John, Peter, and James...

Estimated dates of composition and author identity:

Interpretations differ:

• Conservative Protestants typically believe in the inerrancy of all of the books in the Bible. Thus, they believe that the authors, as identified in most of the Epistles, were the actual writers. Most believe that the Apostle John wrote both the Gospel of John and the Epistles 1,2, and 3 John. They generally believe that the Epistles were written early in the history of the Christian church; all but 1, 2 & 3 John were written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, at 70 CE.
  
• Liberal Christians typically believe that those Epistles whose approximate dates can be estimated were written after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, by unknown persons. By that time, various segments of the early Christian movement had introduced new beliefs that were not present in primitive Christianity as taught by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul. They contain a lot of information about how beliefs developed within the church in the later 1st century and first half of the 2nd century CE.
  
• Roman Catholic scholars: Fr. Raymond E. Brown, is a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and was described by Time magazine as "probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S." 7 He has expressed his beliefs concerning the authorship of these epistles:
  In "Hebrews" there is no reference to Paul being the author; there is no reference to the Hebrews. It was only in the second century CE that this epistle became interpreted as being directed at Hebrews.        1,2 and 3 John contain no reference to authorship by the author(s) of the Gospel of John. That belief also arose in the second century.        Fr. Brown suggests that among critical scholars of the Bible:            
  • 95% believe that Peter did not write 2 Peter;
               
    
  • 75% believe that Jude did not write Jude;
               
    
  • 75% believe that James did not write James;
               
    
  • about 50% believe that Peter did not write 1 Peter.
    

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb4.htm

Congratulations.  You've manufactured a fact out of minority or disputed opinions.  With such "evidence" it's not surprising that you've found an abundance of it.  You present a biased and distorted interpretation of the evidence, much like the advocates of other religions.  When we can't trust you to represent the facts faithfully, all we have left to examine is your antics.  In that you are no different from the advocates of other religions.  Claiming that your distorted misrepresentations of the facts is different from those of other religions is the real special pleading.  They have their arguments and "evidence" and you have yours.  In that you are no different from them.  Your objection that you are "different" deserves to be dismissed just like your bogus "evidence".

The fact that we are discussing difference of opinion on dates and what % of what kind of scholar believes what--illustrates my point. At least Christianity has something to consider. I never claimed the evidence is proof. At most, it is part of a cumulative argument that encompasses a large number of things. There is nothing to prove that the events of the NT did not happen, so we are left with people's opinion of the evidence in light of their other experiences, knowledge, predispositions, influences, and reasoning.