The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Okay, I'm getting tired of the caricature. You keep throwing in the insinuation that I need to believe this for some reason when my argument is that the Gospels are true or false.

I know that's your argument, The Nehor, and you've been shown repeatedly that it doesn't work.

You seem to think that a statement about a historical event being true or false is an oversimplification. I strongly disagree.

It *is* an oversimplification. Did Oswald kill Kennedy? True or false? Was manifest destiny a good thing? Yes or no?

You are trying to take very complex questions (is the Bible historically reliable? does it present itself as literal?) and boil them down into very elementary and reductive points.

You also continually throw in my face that alien abductees and Loch Ness sightings are in the same category as the Bible as if it proves some kind of point. You miss repeatedly that I agree with you that far. I also contend that both are assertions about events that either happened or didn't happen and to figure out which is which would be a different discussion.

Hey, that's terrific. But it still does not explain why you accept one and not the other(s).

I disagree that the Bible shares elements with many of the fictional pieces you're comparing them to. If I had time and the inclination to do a line by line explanation of how the Gospels differ from fictional pieces I might take up the challenge of showing the difference. I don't.

Well, then, you lose the argument.

I do admit that the Gospels do share some elements (though not by any means all) with historical fiction but if the Gospels are historical fiction it is a blatant anachronism. Nothing like that kind of writing would appear for over a millenia either before or after. It would be astonishing if four authors all simultaneously created a virtually new type of work for the same purpose.

Again you are treating the issue reductively. It does not have to be read as "fiction" any more than it *has* to be read as literal history.

I have no problem saying that some people try to warp the Bible to a non-literal understanding due to not understanding context. I don't see how anyone who understands the history can claim to adhere to such an understanding and remain logically consistent.

Yes; I know. That's why you're treating this issue in such a simplistic, reductive way.

I think I may have confused you on one point due to overemphasis. I think you can create symbolic or metaphorical interpretations of the Bible and add them on top of the literal understanding (whether it is true or false) just as you can with any text. However, to suggest that the text was not meant to be a literal recounting of actual events or a fraud is simply bad history and bad logic. I've read true stories and gotten much out of their meaning that is non-literal. I have read lies and gotten much meaning that is non-literal. I do not think this alters the fundamental point that when someone seriously claims to be reporting historic events they are either faithfully telling what they saw or they are lying.

Once again: you are applying extra-literary considerations here. And you are again committing the Intentional Fallacy. But, I'm sure you'll just tell yourself again that it *must* be read either as literal history or a lie, and that no other readings are possible.

[_The Nehor]

It is now obvious to me that we will never agree on the basics of this argument.

(Whisper) Watch now. This is where Scratch usually declares victory and thinks his opponent has conceded.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It is now obvious to me that we will never agree on the basics of this argument.

You're right. The reason being that your argument doesn't have any merit.

(Whisper) Watch now. This is where Scratch usually declares victory and thinks his opponent has conceded.

You don't have to concede, and I don't need to declare victory. You were asked time and time again to cite textual features that would require and either/or reading, and you couldn't do it.

[_The Nehor]

You're right. The reason being that your argument doesn't have any merit.

The feeling is mutual

(Whisper) Watch now. This is where Scratch usually declares victory and thinks his opponent has conceded.

You don't have to concede, and I don't need to declare victory. You were asked time and time again to cite textual features that would require and either/or reading, and you couldn't do it.

[/quote]

No, I did. You then hand-waved them away. It's okay. As a Scratch-certified Key Apologist it's unlikely you'd be able to refute me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You don't have to concede, and I don't need to declare victory. You were asked time and time again to cite textual features that would require and either/or reading, and you couldn't do it.

No, I did. You then hand-waved them away.[/quote]

You did not cite a single textual feature that requires, 100%, completely unfailingly, that every single reader treat the Bible as either literal or a lie. You didn't do it, The Nehor. The two best bits of support you offered were authorial intent and genre, and both of those arguments were completely dismantled.

It's okay. As a Scratch-certified Key Apologist it's unlikely you'd be able to refute me.

You are a Key Apologist. You are a key illustration of the apologist who is incapable of substance.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I have to concur with Doctor Scratch's assertion. The Nehor is a type of "key apologist" in that his willy nilly fanciful mindset is tolerated simply because he is on the right side. He is, the yin to their yang, as it were. If he were to become, horror of horror, an ex-Mormon his style, or "lack of substance" would be an issue immediately seized upon by Mopologists.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_The Nehor]

You did not cite a single textual feature that requires, 100%, completely unfailingly, that every single reader treat the Bible as either literal or a lie. You didn't do it, The Nehor. The two best bits of support you offered were authorial intent and genre, and both of those arguments were completely dismantled.

This only occurs because you wouldn't take the author writing that this literally happened as evidence that it's meant to be literal. i.e. you're an idiot.

You are a Key Apologist. You are a key illustration of the apologist who is incapable of substance.

Luckily one does not need substance to counter your method of criticism: gossip, deliberate misunderstanding, and innuendo.

[_The Nehor]

Hello,

I have to concur with Doctor Scratch's assertion. The Nehor is a type of "key apologist" in that his willy nilly fanciful mindset is tolerated simply because he is on the right side. He is, the yin to their yang, as it were. If he were to become, horror of horror, an ex-Mormon his style, or "lack of substance" would be an issue immediately seized upon by Mopologists.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Doctor CamWhore,

If I became an ex-mormon my one line jabs would likely become topics of serious scholarly discussion amongst the asylum inmates/University professors in the Great and Spacious Trailer park.

Desiring to flay the flesh from your bones,

Stiney

[_Doctor Scratch]

You did not cite a single textual feature that requires, 100%, completely unfailingly, that every single reader treat the Bible as either literal or a lie. You didn't do it, The Nehor. The two best bits of support you offered were authorial intent and genre, and both of those arguments were completely dismantled.

This only occurs because you wouldn't take the author writing that this literally happened as evidence that it's meant to be literal. i.e. you're an idiot.

The Nehor: there is a difference between an author claiming something "literally happened", vs. something having actually, *literally* happened. This was the point we went over earlier, with the examples of the alien abductees, and the schizophrenic. Over and over again, you reductively insisted that the tellers of the tales either have to be treated as telling the complete gospel truth, or else they have to be dismissed as liars. And, as I pointed out from the outset, this is fallacious reasoning (Intentional Fallacy). You *can*, in the broadest and most gullible sense, accept an author's claims in the manner you suggest, but, once again: you'll be committing the Intentional Fallacy. Accepting this one item does not render the text literal; it does not render the text "a lie." All it show is that you, as one reader, have bought into the claims of the author.

What you seem unwilling or unable to understand/accept is that there are other possible interpretations. Here you are again, though, unable to cobble together a coherent argument, and so the best you've got to offer are personal attacks and insults.

You are a Key Apologist. You are a key illustration of the apologist who is incapable of substance.

Luckily one does not need substance to counter your method of criticism: gossip, deliberate misunderstanding, and innuendo.

1. There's no gossip on this thread, apart from the stuff you yourself hauled in about DCP.
2. "Deliberate misunderstanding" is mindreading on your part.
3. There is no innuendo here beyond the evidence-based speculation that your belief in the "literalness" of the Bible is based on extra-literary considerations.
4. Your statement here has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, which, again, doesn't do very much for your argument or your credibility.

But, as I've said for some time now: you just aren't a serious or a substantive poster, and this thread rather tragically shows why. You tried really, really hard to make it seem like you're educated ("We discussed this in class!" "I helped out on a macroeconomics project!") and capable of substantive commentary, but in the end all you do is self-destruct and revert back to your usual, true self: the guy who dispenses angry, violent one-liners and insults.

All of this is fine and dandy in any case, since you've still provided no logical argument for why one *must* treat the Bible literally. I take your last two posts as evidence that you've essentially given up trying, even though your don't have the balls, the graciousness, or the integrity to concede that you've lost the debate.

[_The Nehor]

The Nehor: there is a difference between an author claiming something "literally happened", vs. something having actually, *literally* happened. This was the point we went over earlier, with the examples of the alien abductees, and the schizophrenic. Over and over again, you reductively insisted that the tellers of the tales either have to be treated as telling the complete gospel truth, or else they have to be dismissed as liars. And, as I pointed out from the outset, this is fallacious reasoning (Intentional Fallacy). You *can*, in the broadest and most gullible sense, accept an author's claims in the manner you suggest, but, once again: you'll be committing the Intentional Fallacy. Accepting this one item does not render the text literal; it does not render the text "a lie." All it show is that you, as one reader, have bought into the claims of the author.

What you seem unwilling or unable to understand/accept is that there are other possible interpretations. Here you are again, though, unable to cobble together a coherent argument, and so the best you've got to offer are personal attacks and insults.

You seem unwilling or unable to discern truth from lies. That's okay. It explains much about you.

1. There's no gossip on this thread, apart from the stuff you yourself hauled in about DCP.
2. "Deliberate misunderstanding" is mindreading on your part.
3. There is no innuendo here beyond the evidence-based speculation that your belief in the "literalness" of the Bible is based on extra-literary considerations.
4. Your statement here has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, which, again, doesn't do very much for your argument or your credibility.

But, as I've said for some time now: you just aren't a serious or a substantive poster, and this thread rather tragically shows why. You tried really, really hard to make it seem like you're educated ("We discussed this in class!" "I helped out on a macroeconomics project!") and capable of substantive commentary, but in the end all you do is self-destruct and revert back to your usual, true self: the guy who dispenses angry, violent one-liners and insults.

All of this is fine and dandy in any case, since you've still provided no logical argument for why one *must* treat the Bible literally. I take your last two posts as evidence that you've essentially given up trying, even though your don't have the balls, the graciousness, or the integrity to concede that you've lost the debate.

1. Correct, I was speaking of gossip in a general sense. I'm glad you admit that what you said about DCP is gossip. It's a start.
2. I thought deliberate misunderstanding was kinder then the alternative....rampant and selective stupidity.
3. True, I was speaking generally.
4. Oh no, Scratch thinks my argument is faulty.

No, I won the debate. Applying fallacies in situations it was never meant to apply to destroyed your credibility as soon as you entered the arena. As you are unwilling to show me a scholar willing to apply the fallacy to a historical text I guess you've conceded that no one else has twisted the fallacy to that degree and concede that the fallacy does not apply here.

I accept that unwillingness as your concession.