Quote (dajusta @ May 16 2013 05:36pm)
Stand a few steps back from your argument here and analyze what you are saying. I first attribute the fact that Bart Ehrman doesn't have his collective nuts and bolts together because of his argumentation with D'souza, but you are now saying that alone shouldn't discredit him because he's not a theologian? But now you are saying anyone can debate a theologian, in attempt to give Ehrman back some credit? Let's say in two seconds you're going to show me how WELL he actually did in that debate, so then his credentials are somehow irrelevant at this point? Give me a break.
I've been doing what you think I will do next, i.e. defend how well he did in the debate. Have you been keeping up with this discussion? He smashes d'souza and d'souza never answers the strongest argument in the entire debate: if heaven is a place of free will without suffering, then why not do the same with the universe? If I debated D'souza I could destroy him, and I'm not even a theologian. And D'souza is not a theologian either, he's a fucking politician. He constantly bends and twists the truth in order to appeal to the people. For instance, he says 'natural suffering' instead of 'natural evil', as though an all powerful god could not create the universe in a different way with 'natural law'. He even mentions a fucking scenario wherein the universe is not governed by law, and simply appeals to aesthetics and general common sense in order to hand-wave it away.
Quote (dajusta @ May 16 2013 05:36pm)
Yes anyone can debate a theologian, and Ehrman did a poor job of it. I still stand firmly on the fact that many people are theologians - they just come to the table with different areas of expertise and tools. The world of interpretative study and hermeneutics is such a big universe, there is absolutely no one person who can tackle it all. Like how a young child is a scientist, so can young children be theologians. It just takes an "idea" about God. Bart is indeed a theologian and he makes his jab at theodicy.
Ehrman did NOT do a poor job of it. In fact, he destroyed D'souza, and wasn't persistent enough in order to get D'souza to admit he can't find an answer. No, theologians are named such because they actually have expertise. Are you now going to tell me that anyone can be a nuclear physicist and run a nuclear power plant just because they have a layman's knowledge of nuclear physics and advanced nuclear machinery?
Quote (dajusta @ May 16 2013 05:36pm)
I am not refuting your stance at all. I'm saying D'souza's response is completely sound in the realm that he presented it in.
If tomorrow I starved to death, I would be okay with it. I have been blessed beyond my imagination and for God to take it all away is fine to me. It will be hard no doubt about it, but I'd rather lose my life and keep my soul tyvm.
We can't hold God to our logical standards, but we attempt to use human analogies to describe God. It's very poor argumentation you have here, pretty much strawman gg. If we judge God that will be the pinnacle of our arrogant existence, but to try and understand characteristics of God through human illustration is the pinnacle of our creative soul. Just look at how Jesus masterfully explain the dimension of faith. It is like a mustard seed. The smallest of all seeds. But when it grows, it is like the biggest tree of all. (and I really hope you don't think heaven is a literal rainforest).
Dear god. It's not a strawman; do you even know what that means? If you accept creating God in your own image by using an analogy with humans in it, then that's fine with me, because I created an analogy that destroys any concept of justice and mercy that God supposedly exhibits.
Quote (dajusta @ May 16 2013 05:36pm)
I've argued that the dating is not earlier than the other gospels. They ought to be read, but not seen with authority. Before, I mentioned there is high criterion for scripture to be labeled as scripture. There is absolute nothing the gospel of Thomas adds that is teaching or authoritative that is unique from any other gospel. Even using the word GOSPEL is really hard with Thomas' work. I hope you see that!
Again, we can go back and forth back and forth back and forth on the matter, so why don't we just let the scholars decide?
I don't play the game where I read what you want me to read, and then I give you something to read. What's the point in that? Why don't you summarize it, synthesize it, and add some of your own conclusions to it, so i'm not talking to a book?
I have seen what the scholars have decided, and I KNOW for a fact that the gospel of thomas is the earliest gospel we have, and it is indeed unique. Have you even read the Gospel of Thomas? Jesus. You keep on arguing that it's not authentic or not independent or not preceding, but have you really put anything to support that stance? No, you keep on spewing the same bullshit without any reasoning or argument that gives reason to believe such a thing. Again, I read about the independence as well as dependence of the gospel of thomas before I was a Gnostic, and yet I still found that the independence of it had much, much more merit than the dependence of it on the synoptic gospels. The reason why I gave you passages to read is because it is stated in far better terms than what I could summarize.
Quote (dajusta @ May 16 2013 05:36pm)
Yes faith is bias. I have nothing against that. Modernism may have something against bias, but I believe everything in this world happens for a reason. I have traces of pre-modernism, modernism, and even post-modernism in my blood.
You reject faith because you are also biased in your own way. You are biased to think you are being objective, when you have not considered the implication of faith and scripture. Let me ask you, why don't you think God can raise a handful of people from the dead? Is it because it's against the laws of science? Have you really such a shallow view of God?
I have presented my argument to you on the gospel of thomas, but you will reject it because you only hear what you want to hear. You want scientific evidence to show that the gospel of thomas ought not to be authentic or beneficial to the understanding of the Word of God. I can't offer you that! I can't show you a glowing silver book with the table of contents showing you that the gospel of thomas is indeed non-authoritative. I concede that the writings are definitely ancient, and definitely some category of manuscript, but it is not (in my belief) the Word of God. I trust the early church for making the bible canon, and so therefore my pre-modern senses tell me that it's alright to have faith in the bible. That's my argument basically, to have faith. We can do all the research to keep ourselves above water in terms of blind-faith and genuine faith, but the end remains the same.
Dear God. I'm biased because I'm not biased? What? Faith is a bias. Of course I have a 'bias' (which it truly isn't) as you like to call it, against faith, as faith in the bible itself causes the faithful to accept an answer before it is suggested by evidence, and then the endeavour is to prove what answer you have already concluded is correct. It's intellectually dishonest, and I can't believe you are saying I'm biased because I don't accept a bias. Arghhhh. You can't present any evidence that the gospel of thomas isn't authentic, independent, pre-dating the synoptic gospels, etc. and yet you want me to simply accept your answer, literally on 'faith' in two senses of the word: religious faith as well as faith in your conclusion. I can see why you would have faith in the biblical canon, but I really can't see how you think you're making an argument when it is based solely on faith. Are you supposed to accept that the earth is hollow because I accept it in my faith and so entreat you to accept my faith since it supposedly gives you a bias to look for evidence because you aren't accepting my own bias of blind faith?
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.