erg.
Just a couple of things...
I believe the case of the historical Jesus is a similar situation.
Boy oh boy...if your willing to reduce the assertation of the possability that Jesus may have been an actual human being to being in the same realm as asserting that the possability that pygmies used industrial technology, then I can't help you.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one! :uhyeah:
Also, be careful how you're tossing around the word "theories"
I said "theorize" which means "to propose a theory."
And, in any event, there is enough material evidence to prove certain things beyond reasonable doubt (unless you're a conspiracy nutso)
Not always. There is not always material evidence available to us. In fact, in all ancient history, there is often very little.
But, hey....I must be the conspiricy nutso....or perhaps just a little confused... :rofl:
True as that may be, it does not change the fact that not all positions are equally valid
Never said that. I am saying that the less material evidence you have, the more that is open to interpretation. In the case of Jesus, or any ancient history, there is a lot that is open to interpretation. And for some, their Ego refuses to allow them to accept anything that doesn't fit their interpretation as "evidence."
Yes, and you need to understand that that doesn't magically exclude your logic and "evidence" of criticism by others. This seems to be the conclusion you were going for, and its not a conclusion that is very workable in any sense.
I understand that. It's open to criticism, but my beliefs are on the same "playing field" as yours, or anyone elses. This is because there is not enough material evidence to prove or disprove the Christian premise, or to prove or disprove another premise over the Christian one. Criticize all you like (as you certianly do), but that doesn't change this "fact."
A logical proof is false/illogical if the premise(s) is also false/illogical. That is very basic stuff, and one of the first things you learn in Critical Thinking & Analysis. No amount of rationalizing will change this, without falling into prerational narcissism.
I am well versed in Logic. Anyone who is knows that it only works if the variables are agreed upon. Not all premises are provable or disprovable to be "true" by Logic because of lack of material evidence, so we have to agree or accept the variables before moving forward with a proof. You and I have been down this road before, and it boils down to the fact that we don't accept each others variables.
I can use logic to prove the existance of God. But that doesn't mean that you'll agree that my premises or my variables are true, or that I'll be able to prove them as such.
If we are discussing pure logic (and not empirical truth), then there are certain rules and dictums that are followed.
I am really discussing the use of logic to prove/disprove religion, or ancient history, rather then "Pure Logic." I understand the basic truth tables...thank you.
Just because there is a "God", it does not necessarily follow that Mythical Prefigurement is true.
I agree with this statement. To believe in the Mythical Prefigurement, you have to agree on certain variables. You have to assume God exists. If you assume this, then it is logical to assume that the "story" behind God, whatever it is, is a true story. Then, you have to assume that the Catholic faith (in my assumption) is the closest man-made interpretation of "the true story." Then, you have to assume that other religions are not "all wrong," but may have parts that coincide with Catholicism. If you find this assumption to be true, then it is easy to come to the conclusion that the "truth" in all other faiths support the truths in Catholicism, which reflects the truth in the God story.
It really isn't that hard to understand. Sure, there are a lot of assumptions, and we can pick a part each assumption. All that will do is create more assumptions that need to be picked apart, and so on and so forth; and all along the way we'll find that you can't prove many assumptions to be "true" at all when talking about subjects that lack material evidence. So it will just go around in a circle forever, as we try to agree on the variables.
Now, you can call Mythical Prefigurement idea "elitist" and "racist" all you want, but that is only your opinion, which doesn't make it so.
The theory is a hell of a lot more inclusive then "I believe that my way is right and everyone else is wrong" for one. For two, your forgetting the Christian premise that has to go along with the ideal, which makes it very non-elitist. That ideal is that "truth" doesn't make you a better person, and it definatily ain't going to get you to heaven. In our belief, Satan knows what is "true" more then we do, yet he knowingly spreads lies. Someone could know all the truth in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are going to live a good life over an evil one. So, I may believe that my religion is the most correct and complete, but that doesn't mean I am going to get to heaven over, say, a Jewish or Buddhist person. How can I determine who God loves and who choses to go to heaven? You see, when you add the Christian premise to the Mythical Prefigurement idea, it no longer becomes a "racist, elitist" idea. If you add the Christian ideal, you really can't say that you are better then someone else.
But, of course, you can believe what you'd like.
Should I even go into the fact that your "relativist" argument above is inherently contradictory and hypocritical?? After all, all beliefs are true for the individual... except for the belief that all beliefs are true for the individual, which is obviously the ultimate truth, right?? No position is "better" than another... except for the one that says this is so. Ciruclar, circular, circular. That's why logic is so important, Paul.
It is a paradox. Again, I have to assume that God exists. I have to then assume that there is an ultimate truth, both seen and unseen, and "actual" truth, both seen and unseen, that only God truely has and knows. Then I have to assume that there is individual (I'll use the word "percieved") "truth" which is basically a reflection of ultimate and actual truth but through the individuals eyes. This is what the individual choses to see, the percieved truth, and it may or may not be "true" by Gods standards.
So, it isn't as poorly thought out as you think. All beliefs are percieved to be true from the eyes of the individual, but may or may not be true in the eyes of God (again, going with the assumption that there is a God).
So the logic isn't what you say, really. It is more like "all beliefs are
percieved to be true to the individual, but may or may not be true to "God." Since we do not know exactly what is true to "God," then all our beliefs have equal value until proven otherwise.
The logic, btw, still works if you don't believe in God, you just have to change the variables. You then have "all beliefs are percieved to be true by the individual, but may or may not be "actually true." Since we are all looking through the glasses of our own percieved truth, we do not know exactly what is actually true, therefore all our beliefs have equal value until proven otherwise." In this case, yes, even that statement could be false.
If you look at this arguement, it is not narcissistic, elitist, or racist, or ethnocentric, or whatever clever names that you would like to attribute to my beliefs. It is actually far from elitist in that I give value to everyones beliefs. All beliefs are open to criticism, but this puts them all on the same "playing field".
And, if you look at the arguement also, I am not saying that "I am right and everyone else is wrong." I am just saying "I believe that I am right." Is this different then what, say, YOU are saying? How is that "elitist"?
This attempt to "level the playing field" is just a veiled attempt to make your view superior to all others. And the veil doesn't fool me.
Once again, if you want people to take your argument seriously, bring out logic and evidence. Don't try and deconstruct the logic and evidence of others in a hodgepodge of relativism (a Christian supporting epistemological relativism has got to be the irony of the year).
Gee, heretic...no one can fool you! :rofl: Who's the conspiricy nutzo now? :uhyeah:
You can see what you want to see, but I'll tell you that there are no "veiled attempts" anywhere. It would seem that you have a problem with recognizing that because of the lack of material proof to support really any belief regarding "Jesus," other peoples "evidence" is just as valid as yours. You seem to want to believe that your conjecture is based off evidence that is in some way more valid then others. For some reason, it appears that you resist having a dialog on equal grounds, and that you want to put yourself above everyone else before the conversations even starts. This is just the appearance; tell me if I am wrong.
Once again, if YOU want people to take YOUR arguement seriously, then start respecting other peoples opinions, and be willing to argue from equal ground. If you are respecting others opinions and willing to argue from equal ground, then it would help if it seemed more that way.
Now, in the "historical Jesus" thread, there is plenty of "evidence" and logic there to support the Christian idea that Jesus was a real person; although some points are presented better then others. You may choose not to agree with the variables for the logic, and you may choose to try to refute the evidence, but don't say that there is "no evidence" or "no logic" while assessing that your evidence and logic is somehow superior. Just because you assess something and filabuster it to death, that doesn't make it true.
We can have dialog, if you are willing to talk on equal footing and with a mutual respect for each others beliefs. If you are not willing to do that, then there is no point on continuing with the subject, as nothing good could possibly come out of talking to you.
Paul
P.S. It's funny that you brought up Robert. Filibustering someones arguement doesn't constitute "tearing their stuff apart" or winning the arguement. :lol:
