Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_Calculus Crusader]

Talking snakes = historical?

No. It is a literary device.

A dude walking on water = historical?

Possibly.

Global flood = historical?

No. There is no evidence of a global flood as envisioned by YECs and much evidence against it.

A dude bringing back another dude from the dead = historical?

Possibly.

A dude getting swallowed by a whale = historical?

No. It is a literary device.

You have a very interesting definition of that word, my friend.

I think my definition is pretty standard.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Please. You are the incarnation of credulity when it comes to sources critical of theism in general and Christianity in particular.

I wasn't aware that you needed to have some source to disbelieve the proposition "a magic man walked on a lake".

You don't.

[_Calculus Crusader]

What brand of Christian are you, anyway?

Non-trinitarian, Old Earth.

[_antishock8]

So. Thus far in CC's stunning apologetic defense of Christianity we have:

- An author doesn't have to be the author of an eye witness account.

- The Bible is "historical" because the stories reference real places.

- Koalas hauled ass to Australia after the flood.

- Whatever doesn't "fit" is called a "literary device". That's a funny one. I wonder if he knows that a literary device is used in fiction?

[Guest]

Talking snakes = historical?

No. It is a literary device.

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

A dude walking on water = historical?

Possibly.

I'm not talking about the frozen kind, here.

Global flood = historical?

No. There is no evidence of a global flood as envision by YECs and much evidence against it.

Yet that's what the Bible says happened. I guess we shouldn't take the Bible to be beyond reasoned criticism, then.

A dude bringing back another dude from the dead = historical?

Possibly.

Not really.

A dude getting swallowed by a whale = historical?

No. It is a literary device.

By what standard do you differentiate these stories to be literary devices, and the Ascension, or stories of Heaven and Hell, to be literal truth?

You have a very interesting definition of that word, my friend.

I think my definition is pretty standard.

Standard for mopologists? Yes, that is indeed the standard definition.

[_Calculus Crusader]

So. Thus far in CC's stunning apologetic defense of Christianity we have:

An author doesn't have to be the author of an eye witness account.

An author does not have to be a eyewitness for his account to be reliable.

- The Bible is "historical" because the stories reference real places.

It is rooted in history; the Mormon Scriptures are not.

- Koalas hauled ass to Australia after the flood.

Now you are just making **** up.

- Whatever doesn't "fit" is called a "literary device". That's a funny one. I wonder if he knows that a literary device is used in fiction?

I am aware.

[_Calculus Crusader]

[
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.

[_GoodK]

An author does not have to be a eyewitness for his account to be reliable.

Unless of course the author claims to be an eye witness!

[_marg]

He might as well believe that J.S. used whatever hocus pocus but he doesn't, he restricts his irrational beliefs to Jesus magic.

Please. You are the incarnation of credulity when it comes to sources critical of theism in general and Christianity in particular.

I know..you are right C.C. ... I'm a very credulous individual who believes all sorts of crap..ummm Jesus might not have actually lived and I don't care. And God of Abraham might not actually exist and on top of that I don't care. Oh hell I am a credulous individual. I should be put in a mental institution.

[_Calculus Crusader]

An author does not have to be a eyewitness for his account to be reliable.

Unless of course the author claims to be an eye witness!

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