Saturday, October 24, 2009

Atheist concept of learning

I was having what I thought was a pleasant discussion with an atheist who wanted to know about my views on inspiration. But he really just wanted to mock them becuase when I recommended a book and offered a link to my page on Doxa so he would get more information here's how it went.

Originally posted by Metacrock
read the book "Models of Revelation" by Avery Dulles. He pushes a view called "dialectical retrieval" where by he set's out the Barthian notion of a dialectical relationship between the text and the reader. The truth is uncovered in that dialectic rather than being encoded word for word.

please read my page on my website which is largely based upon Dulles, whose view I share. This will explain more than I can here


I’m not going to read his book and I’m not going to read your stupid “blog”. I started and it’s too long-winded and boring. Just tell me plainly what you mean when you take the position that the Bible is the “inspired” word of God. What does that mean to you?

Originally posted by Metacrock
why would you find it more problematic to have a realistic view of the way communication really works than to have the idiotic and ridiculous literalism of fundamentalism?

I don’t have a problem with that and it’s less problematic, I agree. Why are you responding to things I haven’t said? Please read more carefully.

he did say something that pertained to it

Originally posted by Metacrock
The original events happened in relation to God's orchestration of those events, and people can say things that are based upon ideas given by their contact with the divine. That's why I quoted the guys saying that oral tradition can get it right and keep it straight.

But one of them got it wrong as you can see from my contradiction regarding Mary Magdalene. Their “experience with God” that contributed to them telling the resurrection story failed to keep them from error.

Of course I never said it should be free of error

Originally posted by Metacrock
you are going to be as hung up on literalism as the most literalistic fundie?

That’s why I specifically said that I wasn’t referring to word for word inspiration. Please, Meta, try to respond to what I’ve actually said, not your erroneous inferences.

that was exactly what he said. he just turned on a dime merely because I gave him a link.


Loren said...

Since you are claiming that Celsus had proved the existence of a historical Jesus Christ, do you also agree with the rest of what Celsus had claimed about JC?

Like that JC had been an illegitimate child, and that JC's father had been a Roman soldier.

And if not, then why not?

Metacrock said...

you prove my point about the way atheist think.It doesn't even dawn on you to think "why does he prove it, how does that work?"

you just accept as a simple exchange, if anything Celsus said is true than all Celsus said are true. you don't even bother to weigh the claims. that's stupid.

But ok let's say Mary was a whore and Jesus was illegitimate. does that mean he can't be son of God?

no, show me where it says he can't be?

tinythinker said...

Can we agree there is a difference between historical references being evidence for a historical figure and whether the characterization made by the references is accurate?

That is, if we have half a dozen historical writers discussing Jesus as a real person and the major themes (revolutionary Jew from Palestine in the 1st century) are similar, doesn't that count for something in terms of Jesus being a historical person even if one person says he was born here and another says he was born there, etc?