Being embarrassed about Jesus?

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
They might have gone to seminary for 7 years so they are some kind of authority. The bishop wrote dozens of books and I assume they sold pretty well so people must have considered him to be some kind of authority. I might ask about the resurrection in another thread but I don't want to research what their arguments are now (I might also buy his 350+ page book). But it seems clear that they thought the arguments against the resurrection (from liberal scholars) were very persuasive. Do you agree they thought it was persuasive? (like I've asked before)

The issue isn't strictly their authority or lack there of, but that you're purely propping them up as authorities because you agree with them and then acting like that's some kind of argument.

JohnClay said:
I thought me pointing out that two prominent Christians believe in something is more persuasive than me just talking about my own opinions.

Right, you're engaged in a classic fallacious argument from authority.

JohnClay said:
I don't know but my point is that those pretty well educated Christians found it persuasive despite the strong possiblity that it would cause them to lose their salvation. As a non-Christian my own opinions are biassed.

And we're supposed to find it persuasive...why? It's just two opinions among a sea of opinions.

JohnClay said:
The reason is that they are Christians who should have a strong bias towards believing in a resurrection yet they don't. It would take a lot of research to find all of their reasons like reading the 350+ page book.

That seems an unjustified presupposition, and if you don't know if their reasons are persuasive then why do you present them as if they somehow are unquestionable authorities?

JohnClay said:
I could just read "The Case Against The Case For Christ" and present some of that though it was written by a person who doesn't believe that Jesus existed. I thought the Christians MLK and the bishop are a lot more relevant. Like I said it would take a while to read the 350+ page book and see what the bishop's reasons are. BTW those two Christians also have liberal views in lots of other areas such as not believing in the Virgin birth, etc, etc. I'm not sure there is a point in buying the book. If you were curious you could see for yourself what their reasons were but you don't seem to have the slightest interest in what their reasons were.

You could, and we could see how salient their arguments are. So far your track record is wanting, given that you think that a fallacious argument from authority is somehow a good argument.

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
Its not that its undeniable, simply that its a better explanation than naturalistic explanations barring an insistence that it is impossible.

I'm not aware of evidence for anything supernatural that has happened in modern times. Do you have any examples? That makes it seem less likely that something that contradicted this overwhelming pattern of pure naturalism happening about 2000 years ago.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I'm not aware of evidence for anything supernatural that has happened in modern times. Do you have any examples? That makes it seem less likely that something that contradicted this overwhelming pattern of pure naturalism happening about 2000 years ago.

There are numerous possibilities, but they typically are simply unexplained events rather than being demonstrable miracles. Pure "naturalism" is quite a strange claim to make given that my bet is you'd be hard pressed to define natural in a verifiable or falsifiable way. Though perhaps you can prove me wrong, what exactly do you mean by "natural"?

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
The issue isn't strictly their authority or lack there of, but that you're purely propping them up as authorities because you agree with them and then acting like that's some kind of argument.

Right, you're engaged in a classic fallacious argument from authority.

And we're supposed to find it persuasive...why? It's just two opinions among a sea of opinions.

That seems an unjustified presupposition, and if you don't know if their reasons are persuasive then why do you present them as if they somehow are unquestionable authorities?

You could, and we could see how salient their arguments are. So far your track record is wanting, given that you think that a fallacious argument from authority is somehow a good argument.

I've asked you multiple times to explain why you think they have those opinions. Either it was because they thought it was persuasive or the devil tricked them or something. I'm not saying that they've proven that Jesus didn't rise again I'm saying that it seems the Christian arguments for a physical resurrection aren't so water tight.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I've asked you multiple times to explain why you think they have those opinions. Either it was because they thought it was persuasive or the devil tricked them or something. I'm not saying that they've proven that Jesus didn't rise again I'm saying that it seems the Christian arguments for a physical resurrection aren't so water tight.

You're presenting them as if their opinion is an argument. You've given no reason to take seriously that argument, and your camping on it just calls into question your ability to think critically.

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
There are numerous possibilities, but they typically are simply unexplained events rather than being demonstrable miracles.

So you have zero hard evidence that supernatural things have been happening in modern times? Why is it that so many obvious miracles happened in the Bible? e.g. in Moses' time, Jesus stories, etc. I think part of your proof is that Christian history only makes sense if the resurrection was literal.

Fervent said:
Pure "naturalism" is quite a strange claim to make given that my bet is you'd be hard pressed to define natural in a verifiable or falsifiable way. Though perhaps you can prove me wrong, what exactly do you mean by "natural"?

I think that is obvious. That things happen that always follow the laws of physics, etc.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
So you have zero hard evidence that supernatural things have been happening in modern times? Why is it that so many obvious miracles happened in the Bible? e.g. in Moses' time, Jesus stories, etc. I think part of your proof is that Christian history only makes sense if the resurrection was literal.

I suppose not, but your concern is in itself a bit of evidence.

JohnClay said:
I think that is obvious. That things happen that always follow the laws of physics, etc.

How do you know there is a "law of physics"? And what makes you think that those unexplained phenomena aren't genuine exceptions?

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
You're presenting them as if their opinion is an argument.

So you have no idea why MLK and the bishop favour the idea that the resurrection wasn't literal? Or you do know and you don't want to say?

Fervent said:
You've given no reason to take seriously that argument, and your camping on it just calls into question your ability to think critically.

I think I can think as critically as you can.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
So you have no idea why MLK and the bishop favour the idea that the resurrection wasn't literal? Or you do know and you don't want to say?

I really don't care what their reasons are, my issue is you seem to have no idea and are just trying to employ them as a smokeshield in an illicit argument from authority.

JohnClay said:
I think I can think as critically as you can.

You've shown evidence to the contrary.

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
I really don't care what their reasons are,

I've asked you multiple times to answer this. It doesn't matter whether you care. I guess it is a good excuse to just say you don't care.

Fervent said:
my issue is you seem to have no idea

I already presented a likely (and only?) reason - that they found liberal scholars to be persuasive.

Fervent said:
and are just trying to employ them as a smokeshield in an illicit argument from authority.

Which you use as another excuse to dodge my request to say why you think they believe what they do.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I've asked you multiple times to answer this. It doesn't matter whether you care. I guess it is a good excuse to just say you don't care.

I'm not the one presenting their opinion as an argument. So their reasons are irrelevant, until you present them. Until then, you're engaging in textbook fallacious argument from authority.

JohnClay said:
I already presented a likely (and only?) reason - that they found liberal scholars to be persuasive.

That's neither here nor there, because that remains their opinion and not an argument.

JohnClay said:
Which you use as another excuse to dodge my request to say why you think they believe what they do.

I have no idea, but I'm not the one acting like their opinion is significant. So how about you present the arguments that persuaded them, rather than just presenting an unvetted opinion.

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
I suppose not, but your concern is in itself a bit of evidence.

I just found it odd that the supernatural is so obvious in Bible stories (millions of witnesses, etc in Exodus) then no obvious sign of it in modern times (thought that is consistent with my belief in a non-obvious intelligent force)

Fervent said:
How do you know there is a "law of physics"? And what makes you think that those unexplained phenomena aren't genuine exceptions?

I just think it makes more sense that the world appears to follow the laws of physics but there is a non-obvious intelligent force.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I just found it odd that the supernatural is so obvious in Bible stories (millions of witnesses, etc in Exodus) then no obvious sign of it in modern times (thought that is consistent with my belief in a non-obvious intelligent force)

The issue is you seem to think that your "non-obvious intelligent force" couldn't make itself known at its discretion. And your perception of the supernatural in the Bible is likely due to an unfamiliarity with the actual contents of the Bible, because there are basically only a couple of periods where distinct miracles happend and those periods were punctuated whereas the majority of the Bible involves very mundane maneuvers interpreted in a theological framework.

JohnClay said:
I just think it makes more sense that the world appears to follow the laws of physics but there is a non-obvious intelligent force.

I'm having trouble parsing this, could you unpack it a bit?

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
I'm not the one presenting their opinion as an argument. So their reasons are irrelevant, until you present them. Until then, you're engaging in textbook fallacious argument from authority.

That's neither here nor there, because that remains their opinion and not an argument.

I have no idea, but I'm not the one acting like their opinion is significant. So how about you present the arguments that persuaded them, rather than just presenting an unvetted opinion.

I've presented some options. Either they thought the arguments against a physical resurrection were persuasive - or they were deceived by the devil - or maybe there is another possibility.

I didn't think my request was that difficult. And its what you thought is most likely - not what is definitely the case.

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
The issue is you seem to think that your "non-obvious intelligent force" couldn't make itself known at its discretion.

I think it has made itself known to me to some extent (that upside down Bible, etc) but it doesn't do it in a way that is obvious to others. (pastors say it was just a coincidence).

Fervent said:
And your perception of the supernatural in the Bible is likely due to an unfamiliarity with the actual contents of the Bible, because there are basically only a couple of periods where distinct miracles happend and those periods were punctuated whereas the majority of the Bible involves very mundane maneuvers interpreted in a theological framework.

But the point is that some miracles were apparently witnessed by millions of people.

Fervent said:
I'm having trouble parsing this, could you unpack it a bit?

You said "How do you know there is a "law of physics"?" I don't really "know" it, it is just my belief and it is a bit complicated.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I've presented some options. Either they thought the arguments against a physical resurrection were persuasive - or they were deceived by the devil - or maybe there is another possibility.

That is neither here nor there, because unlesss we examine the arguments that they found persuasive all that we have is two men's opinions. Which is not particularly interesting.

JohnClay said:
I didn't think my request was that difficult. And its what you thought is most likely - not what is definitely the case.

The issue isn't your request, which appears to be a deflection rather than a genuine issue. The opinion of two men on its own, no matter how extensive their schooling, is simply the opinion of two men.

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I think it has made itself known to me to some extent (that upside down Bible, etc) but it doesn't do it in a way that is obvious to others. (pastors say it was just a coincidence).

Ok...so do you believe that this non-obvious intelligent force could manipulate the laws of physics in ways that would leave people without explanation?

JohnClay said:
But the point is that some miracles were apparently witnessed by millions of people.

What makes you think this? Even the resurrection is limited to a few thousand at best. Where do you get millions? Wait...the Exodus...yeah, that's a whole different animal.

JohnClay said:
You said "How do you know there is a "law of physics"?" I don't really "know" it, it is just my belief and it is a bit complicated.

So then why do you insist on pure "naturalism"? What is your basis for that insistence, if you don't even know if there is a real "law of physics"?

Fervent · Jul 8, 2025

JohnClay said:
I think it has made itself known to me to some extent (that upside down Bible, etc) but it doesn't do it in a way that is obvious to others. (pastors say it was just a coincidence).

BTW...this makes me think of Gideon, whose mission was confirmed by God by a wet fleece and dry ground, and a dry fleece and wet ground. I wouldn't discount that sort of private messaging out of hand.

JohnClay · Jul 8, 2025

Fervent said:
That is neither here nor there, because unlesss we examine the arguments that they found persuasive all that we have is two men's opinions. Which is not particularly interesting.

So you believe that they found the arguments persuasive? They aren't just men they are pretty educated Christians. Perhaps who went to seminaries for 7 years each. That suggests there are reasonable arguments against a physical resurrection since there is the pressure (from the gospel) to believe in a physical resurrection.

Fervent said:
The issue isn't your request, which appears to be a deflection rather than a genuine issue. The opinion of two men on its own, no matter how extensive their schooling, is simply the opinion of two men.

And I could just say your opinion is also just an opinion of a man.

Fervent · Jul 9, 2025

JohnClay said:
So you believe that they found the arguments persuasive? They aren't just men they are pretty educated Christians. Perhaps who went to seminaries for 7 years each. That suggests there are reasonable arguments against a physical resurrection since there is the pressure (from the gospel) to believe in a physical resurrection.

I'm sure they did find them persuasive, but we can't really know whether or not the arguments are reasonable until we examine what they are. It's just not an argument to present their opinions as persuasive in and of themselves but a textbook fallacy.

JohnClay said:
And I could just say your opinion is also just an opinion of a man.

And you'd be correct, which is why I prefer to present argumentation and not just rely on the opinions of others to do the heavy lifting.

Being embarrassed about Jesus?

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Similar threads