Speaking in 'tongues'

[Alien]

Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.

Do you have any literary evidence to show that work that includes groups of three is necessarily a literary construct, jermey?  Do you have evidence to show that he wasn't describing  real events.  Do you have any evidence that, as you say in a later post, that Mark invented 3 women?

You have it backwards as usual.

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. I do not have to provide evidence to the contrary.
They have to substantiate their claim.

Something of course no Christian (or follower of any other deity) has ever done.

Except that it is JeremyP claiming something.

[Alien]

Alien,

OK, maybe I was being a bit thick or he was being sloppy when he wrote, "Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events." It still looks to me like he is contrasting literary constructs with descriptions of real events, but hey ho, life goes on.

No, he was merely suggesting that it provided evidence in favour of one explanation rather than another. Your assumption that he was also claiming mutual exclusivity was overreaching.

OK, but why is it in favour of it being a literary construct rather than a description of real events? Why not a literary construct and a description of real events?

[Alien]

The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Precisely, which is why I asked jeremy to provide the evidence for his assertion/claim.

No.

By default nothing that is claimed in the Bible ACTUALLY happened.

It's all an unsubstantiated claim.

By default you should believe NONE of it.

Only when a claim made in the Bible can be backed up should you believe.

No one has to show that the claims are false, they are AUTOMATICALLY false, until shown to be true.

Did you read the post that Hope was replying to? If not, please do; if you did, please read it until you understand it. JeremyP was claiming that, the event being part of a group of three similar events, it meant it was more likely to be a literary construct and not a description of real events.

[Alien]

Shakes,

And your evidence for that claim, BR, is what?

Top trumps!

Told you you you'd need to keep your wits about you.

OK, round 2....

No, BR is claiming that something should be a default. He has not provided a reason for that being the default, at least not here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

OK, but why is it in favour of it being a literary construct rather than a description of real events?

It's "in favour" of it because it's a known rhetorical device used for making a point. That doesn't necessarily mean that, on this occasion, the author wasn't just writing down three factual events, but it does mean that the structure fits a context that does not necessitate factual events. 

Why not a literary construct and a description of real events?

You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

No, BR is claiming that something should be a default. He has not provided a reason for that being the default, at least not here.

It should be the default for the same reason that the same treatment of any other book should be the default. A Harry Potter and a Physics text book both make claims, but only one of them comes with a method to test those claims. If nonetheless you think the default should be to take the factual claims of your "holy" text as prima facie true, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other holy book - and indeed to Harry Potter books too.

[Shaker]

If nonetheless you think the default should be to take the factual claims of your "holy" text as prima facie true ...

I know somebody like that.

[Alien]

Alien,

OK, but why is it in favour of it being a literary construct rather than a description of real events?

It's "in favour" of it because it's a known rhetorical device used for making a point. That doesn't necessarily mean that, on this occasion, the author wasn't just writing down three factual events, but it does mean that the structure fits a context that does not necessitate factual events. 

Why not a literary construct and a description of real events?

You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.

So, you are saying that it being the last of 3 items related by the events recounted being the blessing of gentiles does not tell us one way or the other whether this one was factual or not? As you say, "There's no reason that it couldn't be both" (factual and a literary construct). I agree that determining whether Jesus actually fed 4000+ (or the 5000+ etc.) needs to be determined some other way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

So, you are saying that it being the last of 3 items related by the events recounted being the blessing of gentiles does not tell us one way or the other whether this one was factual or not? As you say, "There's no reason that it couldn't be both" (factual and a literary construct). I agree that determining whether Jesus actually fed 4000+ (or the 5000+ etc.) needs to be determined some other way.

I'm saying that Jeremy never claimed that the use of the "rule of three" trope necessarily excluded the possibility of three factual reports, just that it added weight to the case for it being just a rhetorical device.

[Alien]

Alien,

No, BR is claiming that something should be a default. He has not provided a reason for that being the default, at least not here.

It should be the default for the same reason that the same treatment of any other book should be the default. A Harry Potter and a Physics text book both make claims, but only one of them comes with a method to test those claims. If nonetheless you think the default should be to take the factual claims of your "holy" text as prima facie true, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other holy book - and indeed to Harry Potter books too.

Nope. That is not correct. We are on the Christian Topic board and we are discussing Christian stuff and some of us have looked at both the Christian claims and other claims, e.g. those of Islam and its holy book, in some depth and come to the conclusion that the Islamic holy book is based on the assertions of one man whose word we need to trust (despite him having sex with a 9 year old, killing a man and having sex with his wife the same day and robbing caravans, etc.), while the bible is the assertions of lots of people over the years, some of who claimed to have been eyewitnesses or spoken with eyewitnesses to a man who was flogged, killed and met on a dozen or so occasions over a period of 40 days afterwards. So, in one sense, we are giving the bible the same treatment as any other holy book, i.e. we have looked at the Quran and found it distinctly wanting.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Nope. That is not correct. We are on the Christian Topic board and we are discussing Christian stuff and some of us have looked at both the Christian claims and other claims, e.g. those of Islam and its holy book, in some depth and come to the conclusion that the Islamic holy book is based on the assertions of one man whose word we need to trust (despite him having sex with a 9 year old, killing a man and having sex with his wife the same day and robbing caravans, etc.), while the bible is the assertions of lots of people over the years, some of who claimed to have been eyewitnesses or spoken with eyewitnesses to a man who was flogged, killed and met on a dozen or so occasions over a period of 40 days afterwards. So, in one sense, we are giving the bible the same treatment as any other holy book, i.e. we have looked at the Quran and found it distinctly wanting.

Yes it is correct.

First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified. That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.

Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.

Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.

[ippy]

Spud, your post gives the impression that you're referring to actual events that really did happen?

ippy

Whilst your's suggests that you have evidence to show that they didn't, ippy.  Perhaps you will be come the first person in history to provide such evidence.

Show me yours that they did first Hope.

ippy

[jeremyp]

I don't see that it does.

There is clearly much you are unable to see.

You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive.

No I'm not.

I'm saying that in this case Mark is telling a story to make a point and there is no evidence in this case that he cares about the historicity of his story.

Trying to generalise that to "Jeremy thinks making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive" is dishonest.

It would be unfair to Mark to criticise him for telling a story since he never makes any claim that his story really is historically factual. I think Mark's Gospel is great literature, but it is literature.

[jakswan]

Yes it is correct.

First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified. That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.

Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.

Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.

Alien has conceded to having confirmation bias with regards to the Bible. Confirmation bias is the mechanism for people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, other religions that allow them to believe what they want to believe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Jakswan,

Alien has conceded to having confirmation bias with regards to the Bible. Confirmation bias is the mechanism for people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, other religions that allow them to believe what they want to believe.

Well, to be fair we all have biases to various degrees. That’s why we have the methods of science and reason and so on to try as best we can to remove their effect on the way we understand the world. Alien though (and others) do seem to set the evidence bar quite astonishingly low when it comes to their literal readings of the various bible stories.

He tries the “how come Jesus was seen to be dead and then alive again 40 days later?” line a lot for example. There are countless ways that could have happened which require no miracle of any kind, and it’s not the job of the sceptic to identify beyond doubt which of them was most likely to be the actual one. All that is necessary though is to show that there are lots of them – a trivially easy thing to do – and then to invite the Alien’s of this world to explain why none of them (and none of the real world possibilities we haven’t thought of either) could even have been possible, such that the only possible explanation left standing is his supernatural one.

It’s ludicrous – evidently many non-miraculous explanations could have happened, though how he’d ever manage to establish a probability scale for them to set against his supernatural alternative (how would you use a naturalistic idea like probability to assess the likelihood of a non-naturalistic event like a miracle?) is anyone’s guess. When asked he tends to a basic fallacy – “what are the chances of that then?”, ie the argument from personal incredulity – apparently unaware that, even if you could calculate the odds against the naturalistic possibilities, you’d also need a means to calculate the odds against his miracle alternative to set against them.
 
And even if he could somehow do that, still all he’d have is odds. And odds are just probability indicators – the only way he could enjoy the certainty he claims for a real miracle would be to show that the odds on all the possible naturalistic explanations are zero.

Like I said, ludicrous.

It gets worse though. All he has to go on is stories - accounts from non-contemporaneous witnesses whose picture of the world was routinely populated with miracles, ghosts, spookiness of all kinds and so whose scepticism bar was considerably lower than ours would be. A contemporary David Blaine performing street magic would have performed every bit as credible a miracle to them as would have been a resurrection. 

At best – at very best – a modern day court of law for example would rule these stories as hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence, and yet Alien blithely builds his whole structure of belief on such a flimsy foundation.

Then if you look at context it gets even worse still. Why would a god of the omnis wanting to make a point and we’re told sacrificing his “only son” (albeit only for a bit) do it at a time and place pretty much calculated to be the least effective way possible to convey the message? Picking a backwater province with highly credulous citizens, low literacy and everyday occurrences that were routinely thought to be miracles is about the most incompetent way of doing it I’d have thought, not least because it would identically match the memetics of any manner of other stories of supernatural derring-do. Surely the least this god could have done would have been to have provided some sort of credible evidence - a giant TV screen perpetually replaying the events of the day for example.

Then it gets worse still…

...as Christopher Hitchens used to point out, why would an omni-benevolent God pick such a morally depraved method to make his point? I might for example pay a fine you’d incurred if you were down on your luck, or I might even go to jail on your behalf if I was exceptionally generous-minded. At no time though would I be able to take way your responsibility for your actions. That – rightly – would be yours and yours alone.

What kind of contemptible moral universe would it be if people thought they could behave as disgustingly as they wished because their responsibility for their actions would be taken away provided they just “atoned” – said the right prayers, made the right propitiations etc?

It stinks, and yet that’s what we’re asked to belief about a supposedly morally good god by the Aliens of this world.

Pah!

…and another thing (shuffles off into the night mumbling, occasionally waving arms in the air etc).

[Alien]

Alien,

Nope. That is not correct. We are on the Christian Topic board and we are discussing Christian stuff and some of us have looked at both the Christian claims and other claims, e.g. those of Islam and its holy book, in some depth and come to the conclusion that the Islamic holy book is based on the assertions of one man whose word we need to trust (despite him having sex with a 9 year old, killing a man and having sex with his wife the same day and robbing caravans, etc.), while the bible is the assertions of lots of people over the years, some of who claimed to have been eyewitnesses or spoken with eyewitnesses to a man who was flogged, killed and met on a dozen or so occasions over a period of 40 days afterwards. So, in one sense, we are giving the bible the same treatment as any other holy book, i.e. we have looked at the Quran and found it distinctly wanting.

Yes it is correct.

First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified.

As should all claims, including yours?

That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.

Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.

So what?

Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness.

Nope.

Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.

I've not claimed that my approval says that. What I am claiming is that I have (long ago) looked at Islam in great depth and found it wanting. As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day who asked the churchwardens, "Is there anyone who can tell us more about Jesus?" One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends. Alleluiah! God is good.

We are seeing them down in London in October. Shall I pass on your regards?

[Alien]

I don't see that it does.

There is clearly much you are unable to see.

Or that might be the case for you instead.

Your turn now.

You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive.

No I'm not.

I'm saying that in this case Mark is telling a story to make a point and there is no evidence in this case that he cares about the historicity of his story.

Trying to generalise that to "Jeremy thinks making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive" is dishonest.

It would be unfair to Mark to criticise him for telling a story since he never makes any claim that his story really is historically factual. I think Mark's Gospel is great literature, but it is literature.

What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?

[Alien]

Yes it is correct.

First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified. That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.

Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.

Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.

Alien has conceded to having confirmation bias with regards to the Bible. Confirmation bias is the mechanism for people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, other religions that allow them to believe what they want to believe.

Since you seem to be a decent chap, that is highly unlikely to be deliberate deceit on your part. What, though, is the reason for such an inaccurate statement of my position, please?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

As should all claims, including yours?

Of course. I try to make arguments rather than assert claims, but yes - treat then sceptically until you've tested the logic, and then respond accordingly.
 

So what?

So everything. What unique set of forensic tools is it that you think christians possess, but those of other faiths with equally involved academic traditions do not?
 

Nope.

Yep.

I've not claimed that my approval says that.

Then why bring lurid stories of sleeping with a 9-year-old into it?

What I am claiming is that I have (long ago) looked at Islam in great depth and found it wanting.

And doubtless many muslims have looked at christianity and found it wanting too. Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong? You seem to think after all that you're possessed of investigatory tools that they lack - just pass them on, and you'll convert the world of Islam overnight!

Or could it just be instead that what's actually happening here is that you're more comfortable with your faith beliefs, just as they're more comfortable with their faith beliefs?

As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...

Are you sure it wasn't the bus that brought them?

...who asked the churchwardens, "Is there anyone who can tell us more about Jesus?" One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends. Alleluiah!

Ah, the old "I'll use an anecdote as if that it some way conveyed a larger truth" schtick. You're Alan Burns and I claim my £5!

God is good.

Not for countless of his creatures that live in terror and die in pain he isn't. Or how about the baby with brain cancer? Is this god of yours "good" only when he feels like it or something?

Sounds pretty scummy to me I'm afraid. 

We are seeing them down in London in October. Shall I pass on your regards?

You could do, though you'd be doing more for them if instead you tried sharing some of the tools of reason and scepticism that would show them - and you - to be barking up the wrong tree. 

[Shaker]

bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.

[Andy]

As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...

How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?

One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends.

They were lovely before their conversion, right?

[Leonard James]

bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.

Yes, indeed. That's why I fell in love with him. (Don't be jealous, I love you both.  )

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes, Len...

...aw boys. Should we get a room or something? (I'll bring the twiglets.)

[Leonard James]

Shakes, Len...

...aw boys. Should we get a room or something? (I'll bring the twiglets.)

OK! I'll try to provide something a tad more substantial. 

[Spud]

You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.

For starters, there are two other accounts of the same miracle, of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Secondly, the account draws on a similar miracle, the feeding of the Israelites and many non-Israelites who had left Egypt and had been fed miraculously in the desert. The Jewish theocracy, born out of this event, was testimony to it, and its messianic prophecies (eg Ezekiel 37:24) anticipated miracles such as the feeding of the multitudes by which the messiah would be identified.