Jesus's Sins

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 07:26 PM 2/12/98 -0000, Tim Bedding wrote:

>TILL

>> that would be a clear moral atrocity, but if Yahweh did it, he can be

>> acquitted of blame because he had a "special divine insight."  It looks as

>> if Tim is going to offer us nothing better than what the biblicists who have

>> gone before him on this list were able to do.

>

>TIM

>I am not sure what you are looking for here.

>The problem is raised that Jesus is not sinless because of sins he

>supposedly committed.

>A possible solution is suggested but rather than wanting to prove

>the solution wrong, you seem to want me to prove it right.

>Why is this? I am claiming that the solution is possible, nothing

>more.

>


TILL
No, the problem is that you can't give a reasonable explanation for why
something I would do would be morally wrong but that if a man named Jesus
did it, it was not morally wrong.

TIM

>Also, you seem to be creating problems in the Bible by your

>own assumptions. This is illogical unless you back up those

>assumptions.

>If you cannot back up those assumptions, then all you are doing

>is providing possible errors in the Bible, not certain ones.

>


TILL
I'm creating problems with my assumptions?  Who is the one who assumed that
Jesus had a "higher purpose"?

TIM

>If you are saying that God seems strange to you, then you are

>entitled to your view.

>However, this does not rule out the Christian viewpoint.

>If it did, then surely I could look at the laws of Physics and

>in particular Quantum Mechanics and say "Gosh, these

>laws look strange. They cannot be right."

>


TILL
But after saying that, you wouldn't agree to sit at ground zero during the
testing of an H-bomb, would you?

TIM

>The fallacy in both cases is the same. An argument from personal incredulity.


TILL
No, not really.  The observable results of an H-bomb blast would provide me
very reasonable evidence that physicists understand things that I can't
comprehend; however, until you or someone comes up with a God-bomb that
would give unequivocal evidence that a deity exists whose ways we can't
understand, I will continue to ask for reasonable evidence of
unsubstantiated claims like yours.  In other words, I will believe that you
are arguing only from personal credulity.

TIM

>Let me give an example.

>Suppose I say that the moon is made of green cheese and that

>this is a spiritually important fact that everyone's salvation is

>dependent upon. I then go to my Bible and look for a clear declaration that the

>moon is made of green cheese. Surprise, surprise. I can find no trace of

this vital >doctrine in the Bible.


>Conclusion: The Bible is errant.

>

>The problem may indeed be in the Bible. On the other hand,

>the problem may be in the conception that the moon being

>made of green cheese is a spiritually important idea.

>

>I may be wrong but I thought that claimed contradictions

>and harmonisations were not off topic on this list.

>I seem to detect in your emails a weariness with the

>idea of harmonisations.


TILL
I have no problems with the "idea of harmonizations," but pure speculation
is not harmonization.  Your example above, by the way, relates to nothing
that I can understand about what has been discussed on this list.  To my way
of looking at the issue of biblical inerrancy, your side is the one that has
been making all of the green-cheese assertions.  My side has just been
asking you to give reasonable evidence that these assertions are true.

TIM

>If you find such harmonisations troublesome, then I am

>at a loss to understand why you do not unsubscribe

>or ignore all emails pertaining to harmonisations.


TILL
I can't unsubscribe, Tim.  I'm the owner of the list.  As for ignoring
e-mails pertaining to harmonizations, I certainly don't want to do that.
What I would like for you to do is justify your claim that I don't want to
see postings that pertain to harmonizations.  This is going to be very funny
to those who have been on the list for any time at all.  I would suggest
that simply because I or anyone else points out fallacious thinking in your
efforts to harmonize, this should not be interpreted as being opposed to
such attempts.  It is simply an effort to point out that we see problems in
your harmonization attempt.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Contradiction on Women
• Next message: Jesus's Sins
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]