Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_JohnStuartMill]

Then why couldn't the Atonement, or Resurrection, or whatever the hell else you believe be a literary device?

Those accounts do not have the same character as the "primeval" stuff.

What is it about the character of those accounts that makes them less likely to be allegorical?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Those accounts do not have the same character as the "primeval" stuff.

What is it about the character of those accounts that makes them less likely to be allegorical?

There is no historical context for Adam & Eve or Noah. By way of contrast, there is a historical context for the events in the New Testament. Moreover, the primeval stuff does not have notes to the effect of "as I read" "as was reported to me/dictated to me," etc. as is the case with the New Testament.

[_GoodK]

Right. Apparently you are unaware that all of the Gospels were written anonymously. Only later were names attached to them.

As for the authors of the Gospels, Mark could have written Mark.

I've always felt that the only thing worse than a Mormon apologist is a Christian one. Clearly I am wise beyond my years.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I've always felt that the only thing worse than a Mormon apologist is a Christian one. Clearly I am wise beyond my years.

The blow to your head caused delusions of adequacy, apparently.

[Guest]

There is no historical context for Adam & Eve or Noah. By way of contrast, there is a historical context for the events in the New Testament. Moreover, the primeval stuff does not have notes to the effect of "as I read" "as was reported to me/dictated to me," etc. as is the case with the New Testament.

Jesus apparently thought that the Jonah story was more than a mere literary device:

"For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." -Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in the Gospel According to Matthew

You can't simultaneously believe that one of these stories is true, but not the other. Not if you don't want to contradict your own magic man.

Nice try, though.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Jesus apparently thought that the Jonah story was more than a mere literary device:

"For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." -Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in the Gospel According to Matthew

You can't simultaneously believe that one of these stories is true, but not the other.

Please. If I refer to Icarus or Phaeton to make a point, does that mean I believe Icarus flew or Phaeton drove the chariot of the sun?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Jesus apparently thought that the Jonah story was more than a mere literary device:

"For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." -Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in the Gospel According to Matthew

You can't simultaneously believe that one of these stories is true, but not the other.

Please. If I refer to Icarus or Phaeton to make a point, does that mean I believe Icarus flew or Phaeton drove the chariot of the sun?

If you rely on them to make a point that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to make (and make no mistake -- this is exactly what you're doing here), then yes, you'd have no reason not to.

[_Calculus Crusader]

If you rely on them to make a point that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to make (and make no mistake -- this is exactly what you're doing here), then yes, you'd have no reason not to.

This is not difficult. Even if the author of Matthew is correct in attributing that statement to Jesus, there is nothing in the statement that requires Jonah in the belly of the whale to be historical.

[_JohnStuartMill]

If you rely on them to make a point that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to make (and make no mistake -- this is exactly what you're doing here), then yes, you'd have no reason not to.

This is not difficult. Even if the author of Matthew is correct in attributing that statement to Jesus, there is nothing in the statement that requires Jonah in the belly of the whale to be historical.

Sure, if you think it's possible that the Lord could be mistaken, or could lie to people about the veracity of Old Testament stories.

[_GoodK]

The blow to your head caused delusions of adequacy, apparently.

Ironically, the Mormon religion clearly gives you delusions of adequacy.

I'm glad you've found something to distract you from all the holes in your own logic. Always good to talk to a fan.

Cheers.