Any serious Christians left?

What believer on these boards meets your qualifications?

The primary qulification would be an objective, open mind. Of great help would be some legitimate background in history, linguistics, philosophy, and forensic practice, but those aren't entirely necessary if the discussion be approached in an intellectually honest manner, without preconception agenda, or other precondition. It can be done, and I've have noted same on these boards many times, noting as well the absence of any such undertaking on these boards.

timberlandko wrote:

The primary qulification would be an objective, open mind. Of great help would be some legitimate background in history, linguistics, philosophy, and forensic practice, but those aren't entirely necessary if the discussion be approached in an intellectually honest manner, without preconception agenda, or other precondition. It can be done, and I've have noted same on these boards many times, noting as well the absence of any such undertaking on these boards.

But it's ok if YOU have preconceptions about the Bible, YOU'RE still intellectually honest. It's just that OTHERS aren't, right?

YOU have an objective, open mind which enables you to see that no Christians have same, eh?

Kinda reminds me of your earlier statement that Josephus couldn't be considered as a source when discussing things Jewish, because 'as a Jew he would have knowledge of, and respect for the Jewish canon.'

http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post2186784.html&highlight=josephus#2186784

And then there was your position regarding the authorship of Isaiah that fell apart for lack of any evidence on your part. Lots of assertions, but no evidence.

timberlandko wrote:

The primary qulification would be an objective, open mind. Of great help would be some legitimate background in history, linguistics, philosophy, and forensic practice, but those aren't entirely necessary if the discussion be approached in an intellectually honest manner, without preconception agenda, or other precondition. It can be done, and I've have noted same on these boards many times, noting as well the absence of any such undertaking on these boards.

But it's ok if YOU have preconceptions about the Bible, YOU'RE still intellectually honest. It's just that OTHERS aren't, right?

YOU have an objective, open mind which enables you to see that no Christians have same, eh?

Kinda reminds me of your earlier statement that Josephus couldn't be considered as a source when discussing things Jewish, because 'as a Jew he would have knowledge of, and respect for the Jewish canon.'

http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post2186784.html&highlight=josephus#2186784

And then there was your position regarding the authorship of Isaiah that fell apart for lack of any evidence on your part. Lots of assertions, but no evidence.

...and Christians take themselves too seriously?

jeehosephat.

The primary qulification would be an objective, open mind. Of great help would be some legitimate background in history, linguistics, philosophy, and forensic practice, but those aren't entirely necessary if the discussion be approached in an intellectually honest manner, without preconception agenda, or other precondition. It can be done, and I've have noted same on these boards many times, noting as well the absence of any such undertaking on these boards.

hephzibah wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

LOL It cracks me up sometimes that "non-christians" appear to think they are they only one's "qualified" to talk about the bible.

"Christians aren't qualified to talk about it because they "believe" it. Yet "non-christians" are qualified to talk about it because they don't "believe" it.

Straw man. Many Christians are "qualified" to "talk about it" ... and many do, cogently, intelligently, and objectively. On the other hand, biblethumpers - biblical literalists - chiefly but not exclusively of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion, whether qualified or not in the academic sense, exceedingly rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible.

Ok. So how does one become labeled as a "bible thumper"?

Dunno why that might need clarification - I'll just say it again ... " ...biblethumpers - biblical literalists - chiefly but not exclusively of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion, whether qualified or not in the academic sense, exceedingly rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible...

Quote:

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Not only that though...

They are also qualified to talk about the things they do "believe" as well...

Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

No "double standard" involved at all; just lack of understanding on the part of any who hold such "belief". The problem of misapprehension evidenced by such a statement lies precisely in the "beliefs" of one who would issue and/or endorse such a statement.

What statement are you refering to Timber? Mine? LOL

Yes, this one:

hephzibah wrote:

LOL It cracks me up sometimes that "non-christians" appear to think they are they only one's "qualified" to talk about the bible.

"Christians aren't qualified to talk about it because they "believe" it. Yet "non-christians" are qualified to talk about it because they don't "believe" it.

Broad brush and straw man. As I said, " ... Many Christians are "qualified" to "talk about it" ... and many do, cogently, intelligently, and objectively. On the other hand, biblethumpers - biblical literalists - chiefly but not exclusively of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion, whether qualified or not in the academic sense, exceedingly rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible."

I submit in specific particular that many here, yourself among others, rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible. A pointed example of precisely that, a declaration of faith - "what I believe" - offered as response to a question set calling not for what one believes (as that is a given, established more than well enough) but for explanation of by what criteria, on what logical basis, does one hold such beliefs, is to be found in A M's most recent post.

That post is a declaration of faith, complete with parroting of scripture ("referencing a component of the challenged claim as validation of that claim") in contrast to that the question called for, which was critical justification for the faith, or belief set, held, a declaration of faith further identified as such by multiple unambiguous statements of same ... "Everything we need to know from God (according to Him) is laid out in the Bible ... Since all scripture is God-breathed that tells me it is genuine ... We are supposed to look for the truth in the Bible ... I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired and protected ... I take the Bible as 100% truth. I have faith that it is all true ... - all of which amounts to the multiply circular absurdity: "I believe what I believe my particular bible tells me to believe because my interpretation of my particular bible tells me what to believe, and I believe my particular bible." It is not argument, it is not responsive reply, it is not even discussion; it is proselytizing through declaration of faith.

That post is a declaration of faith, complete with parroting of scripture ("referencing a component of the challenged claim as validation of that claim") in contrast to that the question called for, which was critical justification for the faith, or belief set, held, a declaration of faith further identified as such by multiple unambiguous statements of same ... "Everything we need to know from God (according to Him) is laid out in the Bible ... Since all scripture is God-breathed that tells me it is genuine ... We are supposed to look for the truth in the Bible ... I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired and protected ... I take the Bible as 100% truth. I have faith that it is all true ... - all of which amounts to the multiply circular absurdity: "I believe what I believe my particular bible tells me to believe because my interpretation of my particular bible tells me what to believe, and I believe my particular bible." It is not argument, it is not responsive reply, it is not even discussion; it is proselytizing through declaration of faith.

No need to call my beliefs absurd because I don't believe as you do. Oh and yeah, I know, you didn't actually say "your beliefs are absurd" but I got the picture quite clearly thank you.

who cares about serious christians, most of them seem to damn serious in my estimation

where are the fun loving christians

djjd62 wrote:

who cares about serious christians, most of them seem to damn serious in my estimation

where are the fun loving christians

Asking for forgiveness......

maporsche wrote:

djjd62 wrote:

who cares about serious christians, most of them seem to damn serious in my estimation

where are the fun loving christians

Asking for forgiveness......

Popping a brew and watching Monday night football?

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

The primary qulification would be an objective, open mind. Of great help would be some legitimate background in history, linguistics, philosophy, and forensic practice, but those aren't entirely necessary if the discussion be approached in an intellectually honest manner, without preconception agenda, or other precondition. It can be done, and I've have noted same on these boards many times, noting as well the absence of any such undertaking on these boards.

But it's ok if YOU have preconceptions about the Bible, YOU'RE still intellectually honest. It's just that OTHERS aren't, right?

YOU have an objective, open mind which enables you to see that no Christians have same, eh?

Kinda reminds me of your earlier statement that Josephus couldn't be considered as a source when discussing things Jewish, because 'as a Jew he would have knowledge of, and respect for the Jewish canon.'

http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post2186784.html&highlight=josephus#2186784

And then there was your position regarding the authorship of Isaiah that fell apart for lack of any evidence on your part. Lots of assertions, but no evidence.

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

The primary qulification would be an objective, open mind. Of great help would be some legitimate background in history, linguistics, philosophy, and forensic practice, but those aren't entirely necessary if the discussion be approached in an intellectually honest manner, without preconception agenda, or other precondition. It can be done, and I've have noted same on these boards many times, noting as well the absence of any such undertaking on these boards.

But it's ok if YOU have preconceptions about the Bible, YOU'RE still intellectually honest. It's just that OTHERS aren't, right?

YOU have an objective, open mind which enables you to see that no Christians have same, eh?

Kinda reminds me of your earlier statement that Josephus couldn't be considered as a source when discussing things Jewish, because 'as a Jew he would have knowledge of, and respect for the Jewish canon.'

http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post2186784.html&highlight=josephus#2186784

And then there was your position regarding the authorship of Isaiah that fell apart for lack of any evidence on your part. Lots of assertions, but no evidence.

You offer nought but straw, rl, misrepresenting to suit your purpose what actually was said.

Instance 1) - I did not say "No Christians have same", I in fact said I have noted a number of times on these boards quite the opposite, noting as well I have not seen such presented on these boards.

Instance 2) You still don't understand why or how your objection to my criticism of Josephus as an unbiased, external validation for the historicity of the Christian-purported Jesus is specious. That you so fail itself is telling. You see, or at least you respond, only what you find convenient to see in terms of the proposition you forward and the agenda you press.

Instance 3) Your position reference my discussion of the authorship of Isaiah is at odds both with what was said, with the evidence which was presented, and with the overwhelming consensus of legitimate biblical and historical scholars. You do not pose objection, you merely reject that which is inconvenient to your proposition and agenda.


Perhaps I can make myself more clear. I do not reject your proposition itself, rl, I point out that the manner by which that proposition has been presented on these boards, by yourself and others, is intellectually, academically, and forensically bankrupt - unworthy of serious consideration.

I don't give a damn whether somebody agrees with me or not. I have no influence whatsoever over anyone's right or ability to express anything they wish in any manner they wish. Some here, notably but not singularly those of fundamentalist Christian persuasion, all but uniformly present their proposition absurdly, chiefly through structuring their discourse on self-claimed authority, circular reasoning, and declaration of faith - that's not my fault. Its not my fault some here who proselytize fail or refuse toi recognize that precisely is what they are doing, whether explicitly or implicitly. Any are welcome to perceive and infer as they find convenient - to whit:

M A wrote:

No need to call my beliefs absurd because I don't believe as you do. Oh and yeah, I know, you didn't actually say "your beliefs are absurd" but I got the picture quite clearly thank you.

That statement presents a clear - and by its author self-professed - example of straw man argument.

Again, irrespective of any qualitative judgement pertaining to the fundmentalist/born-again/evangelical/whatever-have-you Christian proposition itself, the manner by which many here forward that propositionis forwarded is absurd. Absurd as well is to claim victimhood for not successfuly having put one's case.