fayfreethinkers.com

Thank you both for responding to responding to my request, and I mean that sincerely. I know how difficult it is to find time to write, especially after my two previous weeks.

You will find my response to the Holmes question below, but first a bit of tidying up, Darrel:

DAR
A very reasonable and common sense rule would be that each side agrees to address all of the other person’s points, and answer all questions put to them. I always attempt to do this and if I fall short, simply direct my attention to the point, or question.

Steve
But that sword cuts both ways.

DAR
So when are you going to begin addressing points directly, rather than ducking them, and addressing questions directly, rather than running from them?

Ask away, the Holmes question you wanted an answer to follows, and you also are free to remind me what you would like answered if I miss or neglect something going forward. Feel free to bring up past posts as well. Just know that if you pile a bunch on at one time I may have to answer them one at a time since big blocks of time for studying, thinking, and responding are hard to come by for me. You might not get all of the answers (in the case of questions) or responses (in the case of points) immediately, the difference between which you don't seem to understand as the following seems to indicate:

Steve
So, since I never got this sequence addressed earlier, and since I asked first and it prompted your question about Sherlock Holmes, I will restate the points for both you AND Doug to respond to.

Dar
These weren't questions and you addressed them to Doug.

You got the Doug part correct, but I didn't call them questions, did I Darrel? I called them a sequence, a sequence of assumed points which I wanted Doug to clarify for me. And well done, you got the part correct that I did not present them to you originally, but I did this time because I wanted the same information from you as from Doug. Thank you both.

Steve
My response to your question about Holmes is already written.

DAR
So Steve continues duck and waffle, and can't answer a straight up question. Pathetic.

I had already told you it was answered. No ducking, no waffling, no kidding. I was taking you at your word, Darrel. I had asked for a response from Doug, and got a mocking dismissal from you, Darrel. I asked for the "common sense" rule to be honored by Doug, and included you for simplicity sake so I didn't need to ask again.

Steve:
All you need to have me post it is address each of my points, not tritely dismiss them.

DAR
Points?

Yes, Darrel, points. You are the one who included both "points" and "questions" in the delineation of your rule. You know, points are statements of information, and questions are requests for information. I assumed that you knew the difference since you used both terms in your rule.

DAR
Apparently you don't understand the Sherlock Holmes question. Good grief. And you can't even be bothered to put these forward as questions?

They were not stated as questions originally, and I saw no need to change their format. So now you are claiming the right to tell me how I can interact in my posts?

So now to the Sherlock Holmes question you asked, "Was Sherlock Holmes smart?"

I find no small amount of irony in the fact that you challenged me with an observation of one of my favorite fictional characters, Sherlock Holmes. He was a favorite in part because of the English setting since I was born near Liverpool. But my interest was more substantially based on fascination with his powers of observation and reasoning. Of course your question, “Was Sherlock Holmes smart?” is subject to interpretation no less than the assessment of Holmes mental prowess under the creative pen of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Was Holmes smart? Here we go with definitions again. “Smart” as defined by several dictionaries includes many distinct offerings, not the least of which has to do with the measure of intelligence. So if your question is, “Did the fictional character Sherlock Holmes demonstrate a high level of intelligence, my answer would be, “Yes, great intelligence in many aspects of his life and work, but not wisdom in all.” His ongoing resistance of the advice of Dr Watson against serious drug use and abuse would exemplify the latter.

The sense of irony comes from the fact that in part my analysis of the gospel accounts utilizes the non-fictional science of abductive reasoning for which Holmes was known, although he typically referred to it as deduction. In contemporary settings the practice is employed in crime scene investigation. I am a CSI buff myself, and recently used that interest to demonstrate that a student who had been accused of “keying” (scratching with a key) a car in the Ozark high school parking lot, had done nothing of the sort to the satisfaction of both the principle and a police officer. In fact, the car had not been scratched with a key at all.

Steve

Jesus Christ on a Popsicle stick, I do believe Steve is trying to bore us to death. Not only did Steve waste his time writing the above I wasted my time skimming it.

The correct answer to the question was: "yes." Then, if you're smart like Sherlock Holmes, you move on to something substantive and hope no one notices that you just tried to float the absurd notion that people who don't believe Jesus existed can't talk about claims made about him in the only book that pretends to know anything about him.

If Steve was a little quicker study he would have known that the Sherlock Holmes question all by itself addresses, no cut the testes off of, all of his points on this question (which are just the really thing restated over and over). Which with all of the blather above, he still doesn't address! And that is, one can certainly talk about characters in books without addressing the question of whether they actually existed, or whether the actions attributed to them actually occurred.

Was Sherlock Holmes smart? Yes.
Did Jesus like to do magic tricks at weddings? Yes.
Was, according to the Bible, Jesus a liar like his papa and Peter and Paul? Absolutely.

As I noted at the very beginning of this, fundies will do anything to avoid addressing the problems before them on this issue. And for very good reasons. Steve promised to have "painted us in a corner" on this question. Perhaps he could now either show how this is so, or better, be honest and admit he passed along a fundie canard without first thinking about it.

Your answers to the sequence of points were very helpful, and at the same time not what I expected. Not only did you not paint yourself into a corner, I found out there was no corner to paint yourself into.

Jesus becomes basically anything you want him to be. You "know" that scripture is untrustworthy by your measuring stick, yet you call the one who may or may not have existed a liar. But you aren't really sure about this will-o-the-wisp mythical figure who may or may not have been based on some poor soul back then.

I really question whether anything worthwhile can come from continued "discussion" like we have had. Please stop your whining about avoiding and ducking. You are the one who keeps bringing up things like Sheehan and your frontal attack on Jesus as a liar that had nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread. If you don't want me to ponder, research and respond, don't bring this stuff up in the first place. If you do then don't belly ache when I take the time to respond. And you can blame yourself for the long answer about Holmes. Your acidic posts have pretty much ruled out brief answers posted without thinking through all the possible angles you might exploit.

I have already addressed the Magdalene problem of Till, and the matter of Mark 16:8 and the impossibility of making any weighty argument based on the truncated text which all modern textual scholars recognize as extremely problematic. Let's move on.

Do you have a specific issue you want me to address next relating to the harmonization of the gospel accounts, or is it my choice?

I will be with my father who is turning 80 tomorrow, and will be there for a little over a week. He has no internet access. I might have a chance to get to the library for a bit, but I am not counting on it. So I may or may not respond before the 26th. I am especially grateful for my experience with you right now as this will be the first chance to spend time with my father since I reconciled with him after the message I preached that Sunday last year. So good has come from it.

Steve

SteveMc wrote:Not only did you not paint yourself into a corner, I found out there was no corner to paint yourself into.

I'm glad you enjoyed my painting.

Jesus becomes basically anything you want him to be.

No, actually you are the one who believes you are in communication with him. It's my understanding that the book is all we have, warts and all. So it's your Jesus that is much more malleable, and one could say, faith based.

You "know" that scripture is untrustworthy by your measuring stick,...

Indeed. And since you have my book, you know my many specific reasons for knowing exactly how and why it is untrustworthy. No surprises really, all standard stuff well known to all Bible scholars the world over.

...yet you call the one who may or may not have existed a liar.

Right. Because the book says he lied. Whether the character actually existed or not, is an entirely different question. The character, in the story, at least exists, in the story. And that one, is a fibber.

But you aren't really sure about this will-o-the-wisp mythical figure who may or may not have been based on some poor soul back then.

Right. And no one else is either. I'm just honest about it.

Please stop your whining about avoiding and ducking.

Nope. Avoiding and ducking will be called out. I think it may be this manner of avoiding uncomfortable truths that has gotten you so far out in the weeds and believing such an indefensible, unscholarly, mess.

You are the one who keeps bringing up things like Sheehan...

Steve. I have a religious quote file I started before the internet existed. It's about 700 pages long. I have much of it (roughly) committed to memory. Sometimes at the end of my posts I like to add an aphorism or quote that is pertinent to the subject at hand. It's a service I provide for no extra charge. Dr. Sheehan is a highly credentialed religious scholar and it is perfectly appropriate for me to refer his work on this matter. Feel free to respond to such quotes, (as you said you would but didn't) or not. But don't duck the questions.

...your frontal attack on Jesus as a liar that had nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread.

You're right. But you went with it. I told you, I find the tangled web of this Easter business rather boring. It's especially boring when you don't respond to stimulus by addressing questions and points. But I do think you have been doing a little better. And that's good.

And you can blame yourself for the long answer about Holmes.

It just seems like so much posturing. Of course, Sherlock Holmes is smart. But it's just an example making the point that we can talk about characters in stories whether they are fictitious or not.

Your acidic posts have pretty much ruled out brief answers posted without thinking through all the possible angles you might exploit.

Correct. We run a very tight ship. This isn't church!

I have already addressed the Magdalene problem of Till,...

No I don't think so. But you did stack some questionable assumptions. And you made an absolute hash of Matthew.

and the matter of Mark 16:8 and the impossibility of making any weighty argument based on the truncated text...

Not really. Mark said they left the tomb and told no one. You very much want to appeal to some further text that you don't have. But even more of a reach, you want to imagine that text saying/implying that they left the tomb and told a bunch of people. This presents two obvious problems:

a) the text you want to have doesn't exist
b) the text you want to exist would contradict text that we do have

So that isn't going to fly. Modern scholarship understands that the Mark story is earlier and thus less elaborated and mythologized as the other stories are. Makes sense.

Do you have a specific issue you want me to address next relating to the harmonization of the gospel accounts, or is it my choice?

You could always try the sixteen problems you have already acknowledged on your blog (and I reposted February 4th):

So far I have considered sixteen issues I have found firm or potential resolution for so far in the harmonizing of the resurrection to ascension texts. I use the word error in this list a lot, not to signify error in the text, but error on the part of those who use these issues as reason to doubt the reliability of the accounts. Some were suggested to me by freethinkers, others I picked up on my own. Here is the list for now, which I am sure will grow as the study progresses with a brief mention of why each issue seems “irreconcilable” to those unskilled in understanding the Word of God:

Mary did or didn’t touch Jesus after the resurrection problem. Greek translation error.
The chronological witness appearance list problem between the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15. Genre observation error.
The ascension location problem. Location detail observation error.
The event order problem within Matthew. Greek grammar/syntax error.
General sequencing problem between the Gospels. Greek translation error (above).
Information compression problem in Luke. Stylistic rendering error.
The Eleven/Twelve problem referring to the disciples. Point of View error.
Missing/additional information problem between Gospels. Misunderstanding author purpose error.
Additional name problem regarding who was with the women. False assumption errors.
Additional spice problem with the women. Misunderstanding of action and purpose error.
The women did or didn’t tell others problem. Cultural context error.
Turned and met, or ran and met Jesus problem. Spatial precision ambiguity error.
Saw men or saw angels in the tomb problem. Visual manifestation concept error.
One angel or two angels spoke problem. Excluded middle error.
First visual manifestation witness problem. Mistaken identity error.
Roman soldiers fleeing problem. Misunderstanding of delegated authority error.
Sixteen Candles

And here's a thought, just something to consider. You seem to consistently want to delve into and fiddle about with the Greek and point to novel interpretations and possibilities. These problems are considerable and there may not be another option for you (and that's unfortunate) but I don't think this habit will be useful for you. Knowledge is specialized and I look to the best professional credentialed translators making translations and understanding the nuance of these obscure, ancient (sometimes dead) languages in question. If you find yourself, in your efforts to address these problems, leaning upon unique, homemade, or fundie corrupted translations that are not supported by a preponderance of the mainstream peer reviewed scholarship, this is not going to be persuasive to those (like me) who are not looking for a faith to support but rather what is most likely the truth of the matter.

D.
----------------
One of my favorites. Highly recommended:
Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity
Richard Packham
LINK

Well, tonight is the night I admit that what my friends and family have been trying to tell me for weeks is correct. I am wasting my time, time which would be much better spent more productively elsewhere.

It is clear you and I are on completely different tracks in our understanding of scripture and I am unwilling to keep repeating myself over and over to your objections. Posting any more answers here will be pointless.

It was good to be brought to a clear understanding of my arrogance, and I thank you for that. I had a great time with my dad and our interaction contributed to that as well.

I have a much better appreciation for the complaints and objections of those who disagree with me which I expect will temper my interactions with others. But it is time to move on.

And with that I will say goodbye.

Steve

<GASP!>
Who could have foreseen that!?
</GASP!>

David Franks wrote:<GASP!>
Who could have foreseen that!?
</GASP!>

I'll tell ya who. From my January 29 post:

STEVE
I am beginning to sense a note of frustration with what I am doing in this study.

DAR
Your sensors need to be calibrated. I don't get frustrated. You've supposedly spent 60 hours on this issue and so far you're accomplished nothing. Fundies generally have an expiration date and I would like you to actually accomplish something and learn something before you throw up your hands in frustration and run. I would also like to learn more about the details of these Easter Problems, but so far that hasn't happened because you have failed to:

a) engage the issues directly
b) respond to direct questions
c) respond to points directly

Steve was bragging about having the answers to these problems in October. He contacted us about doing a meeting presentation/lecture about it. Then he began to educate himself about the extent of these problems. Then he went to Apologetic Mecca (Dallas Theological Seminary Library) and looked at their answers. After that he was about done. Maybe my book helped? At around this point it dawned upon him how badly the answers he has at hand fall short of being plausible to people who are not devoted to, and predisposed to believing whatever is required, by faith, to keep their religious hopes alive.

Oh well, do come back for a visit any time Steve.

Steve's blog is here I am Not Ashamed. Weeks ago I made a comment and posted a link to this exchange on his blog, but so far he has been too ashamed to approve it. Perhaps he hasn't been by to update in some time.

Darrel wrote:I'll tell ya who.

I was being facetious. We also have KaceyAcles (Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:02 pm):

How many times have we seen this? Fundamentalist shows up confidently thinking he has all the answers and that the only problem regarding the Bible is we skeptics only have a superficial understanding of it. Then, to his chagrin, the fundamentalist realizes in all actuality he is the one with a superficial understanding of the BuyBull and basically runs away saying they don't have enough time. <sigh>

And Doug (Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:29 am):

How To "Solve" the Easter Challenge
1. Brag about how easy it is to solve the Easter Challenge.
2. Explain at length how silly skeptics are for not seeing the obvious. They must be blinded by their bigotry.
3. Point out how the Holy Spirit helps interpret scripture.
4. Complain about a lack of time in your personal life to write out the obvious. Elaborate. Multiple times. Repeat.
5. Run away without sharing your solution to the Easter Challenge.

I have seen this 5-step process done so many times it must be posted somewhere in every fundamentalist apologetics classroom.

There might well be something about it in Isaiah.