Conversation With a Christian Theist

[josephpalazzo]

So it went this way:


physicsandwhiskey•4 days ago
Can I add some pepper as well?

Fundamentalist biblicism has presented an interpretive motif that claims a "literal" interpretation is somehow superior to any other. It has subsequently displayed extreme hypocrisy by failing to apply this motif in a consistent manner.

Understandably, atheists point out these hypocrisies with great mirth, and I applaud that. However, when they turn around and assert that all Christians are being "inconsistent" or "rationalizing" when they fail to adopt this motif, it's simply ridiculous.

A "literal" interpretation is meaningless in the context of any other literary work. We don't care what exact words were used. In any other literary work, we want to know the original audience, the cultural context, the thematic position, the genre....everything that goes into the elucidation of a text.
So for an atheist to insist that anything other than a "literal" interpretation is "forced rationalization"....well, it's as fundamentalist as the fundamentalists who originally came up with the idea.

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•4 days ago
The problem here is that the Jesus resurrection is taken to be literal. So when do we take certain parts the bible ( both OT and NT) as literal, and which other parts are to be taken figuratively? Can you blame atheists when they say, you're cherry-picking?

physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•4 days ago
Ahhhh!! See, that's the whole problem!

"The Jesus resurrection is taken to be literal" is an entirely fundamentalist approach. Get rid of it. Put it out of your head. That's the fundamentalist mindset, and it will mess you up every single time.

We don't need to overlay the resurrection account with any ridiculous edifice of "literalness". Each book in the Bible is a literary-historical text. We look at genre, audience, structure, and everything else; whether it's "literal" is an utterly worthless question.

Sure, it's cherry-picking when a fundamentalist insists that certain verses must be taken "literally" and other verses must be taken "figuratively". But we've moved past fundamentalism here, thank you very much.

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•4 days ago
Yep, exactly what I said: cherry-picking.


physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•4 days ago
Points for not specifying even generally what in the world you're referencing! ;)

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•3 days ago

No one sees in the Illiad, that gods were taking sides in that war, is to be taken as real. No more than the resurrection in the NT should be taken as real. Cherry-picking is exactly what you're doing when you chose the former as not real, and the latter as real.

physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•a day ago

Hmm. You seem to think that it's impossible to have an analytic metric which can accept one miracle claim and exclude others without special pleading (or "cherry-picking" as you call it).
That's a tall order. Care to back it up with something beyond mere speculation?

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•21 hours ago

The speculation is coming from you. Accepting a resurrection from mere hearsay is quite foolish, don't you think?

physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•21 hours ago

Wait, is it "speculation" or "special pleading"? You're not being consistent.

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•29 minutes ago

You're doing both, but special pleading is the bigger one in your case.


physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•25 minutes ago

You're making the positive claim that it's impossible to believe one religion and exclude others without employing special pleading. Please provide evidence for this positive claim.

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•19 minutes ago

Never said that. But reading the Homer's Illiad and discounting all the various gods' activities in that book, while believing the resurrection in the NT IS cherry-picking, whether you like it or not.

physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•14 minutes ago

Do you think it's cherry-picking because you think I don't have a reason, or do you think it's cherry-picking by necessary definition? That's what I'm trying to figure out.


josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•8 minutes ago

If you have reason(s) to discount one and believe the other, then spill that out.


physicsandwhiskey> josephpalazzo•5 minutes ago

Well, most obviously, Homer's works purport to be fiction and the Bible does not; that pretty much takes care of it right off the bat.

josephpalazzo> physicsandwhiskey•2 minutes ago

So there you go, you have no valid reasons whatsoever. So I stand right on this: it's not only cherry-picking in your case, but shameless cherry-picking.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Can we have some pie then? Cherry is my favorite. :)

[josephpalazzo]

You are shameless,  :P

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You are shameless,  :P

Actually I feel very ashamed of myself for admitting to my cherry pie fetish..  I have other fetishes as well, but.....

[Colanth]

So let me see if I got this right:

Christian: 2,000 years ago, but not literally 2,000 years ago, Jesus died for your sins, but not a literal Jesus, and he didn't literally die and it's not for your literal sins.

So it's really "Some time in the past or future, some guy with some name sprained his ankle so that you wouldn't feel bad."  But not actually.

But you'll go to the literal hell for literally eternity and literally burn if you don't literally accept all of this.

Did I mention Hank?

[Krisyork2008]

I love how quickly theists who have learned debate tactics will jump on atheists for making a positive claim, (which, just for the record, you were not doing,) and yet can't seem to understand the fact that believing in any god is a positive claim.

[josephpalazzo]

I love how quickly theists who have learned debate tactics will jump on atheists for making a positive claim, (which, just for the record, you were not doing,) and yet can't seem to understand the fact that believing in any god is a positive claim.

Well, I was making a positive claim, that he was cherrypicking. He tried to deny that until he let the cat out of the hat, with the blatantt assertion "Homer's works purport to be fiction and the Bible does not." He was caught in his own circularity.  :-P

[Colanth]

I love how quickly theists who have learned debate tactics will jump on atheists for making a positive claim, (which, just for the record, you were not doing,) and yet can't seem to understand the fact that believing in any god is a positive claim.

Belief isn't a claim.  An agnostic theist isn't making any claims.  Other than that, though, you're right.  They tell you that their god exists and that it's just reality, not a claim.  When you reply that you don't accept their "reality" they say that you're making a positive claim.

[Minimalist]

As a matter of fact, Joe, there is nothing at the beginning of the Iliad...

The Iliad

By Homer

Written 800 B.C.E

Translated by Samuel Butler

       Table of Contents

Book I      

Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so were the counsels of Jove fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another.

And which of the gods was it that set them on to quarrel? It was the son of Jove and Leto; for he was angry with the king and sent a pestilence upon the host to plague the people, because the son of Atreus had dishonoured Chryses his priest. Now Chryses had come to the ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, and had brought with him a great ransom: moreover he bore in his hand the sceptre of Apollo wreathed with a suppliant's wreath and he besought the Achaeans, but most of all the two sons of Atreus, who were their chiefs.

"Sons of Atreus," he cried, "and all other Achaeans, may the gods who dwell in Olympus grant you to sack the city of Priam, and to reach your homes in safety; but free my daughter, and accept a ransom for her, in reverence to Apollo, son of Jove."

On this the rest of the Achaeans with one voice were for respecting the priest and taking the ransom that he offered; but not so Agamemnon, who spoke fiercely to him and sent him roughly away. "Old man," said he, "let me not find you tarrying about our ships, nor yet coming hereafter. Your sceptre of the god and your wreath shall profit you nothing. I will not free her. She shall grow old in my house at Argos far from her own home, busying herself with her loom and visiting my couch; so go, and do not provoke me or it shall be the worse for you."

to indicate that Homer said he was writing fiction.

Homer and the Bible.  Equivalent piles of shit....but Homer is better written.

[josephpalazzo]

Thanks for those wonderful verses. Homer must have captured the imagination of thousands of minds as his work endured through the centuries. But like I said, no one believes in those gods. And Christians will agree, but they will never apply the same logic to their textbook, the bible.

[aitm]

As a matter of fact, Joe, there is nothing at the beginning of the Iliad...

The Iliad

By Homer

Written 800 B.C.E

Translated by Samuel Butler

       Table of Contents

Book I      

Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so were the counsels of Jove fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another.

And which of the gods was it that set them on to quarrel? It was the son of Jove and Leto; for he was angry with the king and sent a pestilence upon the host to plague the people, because the son of Atreus had dishonoured Chryses his priest. Now Chryses had come to the ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, and had brought with him a great ransom: moreover he bore in his hand the sceptre of Apollo wreathed with a suppliant's wreath and he besought the Achaeans, but most of all the two sons of Atreus, who were their chiefs.

"Sons of Atreus," he cried, "and all other Achaeans, may the gods who dwell in Olympus grant you to sack the city of Priam, and to reach your homes in safety; but free my daughter, and accept a ransom for her, in reverence to Apollo, son of Jove."

On this the rest of the Achaeans with one voice were for respecting the priest and taking the ransom that he offered; but not so Agamemnon, who spoke fiercely to him and sent him roughly away. "Old man," said he, "let me not find you tarrying about our ships, nor yet coming hereafter. Your sceptre of the god and your wreath shall profit you nothing. I will not free her. She shall grow old in my house at Argos far from her own home, busying herself with her loom and visiting my couch; so go, and do not provoke me or it shall be the worse for you."

to indicate that Homer said he was writing fiction.

Homer and the Bible.  Equivalent piles of shit....but Homer is better written.

Boy that brings back some memories, in fact, I think thats about as far as I got in that book.

[Krisyork2008]

All theists are agnostic, which I've argued before, but I don't want to do that whole thing again.

Regardless, people believe things for a reason. You do not just choose go believe something. Experiences happen to you that cause you to believe, whether you wanted to or not.

You believe in Santa until your parents tell you he's not real. You didn't have an option in that. The idea didn't even crop up. By bringing up the idea of Santa and your belief in his being, you are making a positive claim that he exists, because you full on belief he does. In your mind you wouldn't dream of him not existing.

If the faithful truly believed in god then they wouldn't have to argue about "positive claims," since they'd be 100 percent sure that god exists. Absolute belief is absolutely a positive claim.

[Solitary]

I cherry pick every time I read any of the bibles, some parts are illogical, some are good advice, some are allegorical, some are bat shit crazy, and most are in no way historical. What exactly is the point of the bible? To justify and validate peoples fears, hatreds, bigotries, prejudices so they feel good about themselves with faith in it being Gods word so it has to be true. No one has said Christians are rational. If they were they wouldn't be Christians.  :-k   :roll:  Bill

[Jason78]

You are shameless,  :P

Actually I feel very ashamed of myself for admitting to my cherry pie fetish..  I have other fetishes as well, but.....

[youtube:1adi4wu1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFtD1DMal3o[/youtube:1adi4wu1]

[josephpalazzo]

All theists are agnostic, which I've argued before, but I don't want to do that whole thing again.

Regardless, people believe things for a reason. You do not just choose go believe something. Experiences happen to you that cause you to believe, whether you wanted to or not.

You believe in Santa until your parents tell you he's not real. You didn't have an option in that. The idea didn't even crop up. By bringing up the idea of Santa and your belief in his being, you are making a positive claim that he exists, because you full on belief he does. In your mind you wouldn't dream of him not existing.

If the faithful truly believed in god then they wouldn't have to argue about "positive claims," since they'd be 100 percent sure that god exists. Absolute belief is absolutely a positive claim.

Yeah, the comment I got from that the theist was, do atheists simply want to know the truth? Yep, I guess he meant "his" truth". His last point was that "all nonbelief is unreasonable." Go figure.