Rules

From Errancy Wiki
Revision as of 10:03, 4 March 2008 by JoeWallack (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | view current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Rules


Polemics has long been dominated by [B]BizStrawmantics[/B], created by Christianity, which is fueled by the observation that the normal rules of Logic and Reason do not apply within the sphere of Religious discussion. For most of its history publicly arguing Against The Christians was very bad for your health. It's only relatively recently that Skeptics have been able to publicly challenge Christianity and the Skeptical presentation is still largely the defensive mindset inherited where Skeptics generally limit themselves to doubting Christian Assertians rather than simply stating that Christianity is wrong (although the Prophet Bill Maher is testing the unholy water by starting to publicly criticize Christianity in the Media).

We need to apply the [SIZE=3][B]same[/B][/SIZE] Standards for determining error in the Bible that we would use to determine error [B]outside[/B] of Religion. Your question should now be answered but for those who need points sharply explained, outside of Religion, in a Formal setting, we use [B]Law[/B] to set Standards for determination of error. We would find the Legal definition of error in Legal [B]Dictionaries[/B] (surprise):

[url]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Error[/url]

"ERROR. A mistake in judgment or deviation from the truth, in matters of fact and from the law in matters of judgment."

in an Informal setting, we use [B]Common Sense[/B] to set Standards for determination of error. We would find the Common Sense definition of error in [B]Dictionaries[/B]:

[url]http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Error&x=12&y=18[/url]

"Main Entry: er•ror Pronunciation: 'er-&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English errour, from Middle French, from Latin error, from errare 1 a : an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior b : an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy c : an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done:"

As you can see, the Legal definition of "error" takes the Common Sense definition and applies it to the Law.

As I see it, Dictionaries give a [B]Range[/B] of meaning for "Error" from:

1) [B]False statement[/B] - which would be at the narrow definition end

to

2) [B]Inaccurate statement[/B] - which would be at the broad definition end. "Inaccurate" would include statements that are not clearly false but are clearly less than an accurate statement.

In my opinion, a list of Errors In The Bible should only include 1), False statements, but at the same time I would not criticize anyone for using 2) since technically they meet some of the definition of error.


Joseph

TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.


[COLOR=Blue]JW: As that great 20th century philosopher, Montgomery Burns, said, "Exxxcellent" question. In order to determine [B]what[/B] is an error, "error" must first be [B]defined[/B]. I've suggested the [B]dictionary[/B] definition for a starting point:

"Etymology: Middle English errour, from Middle French, from Latin error, from errare 1 a : an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior b : an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy c : an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done:"

I see two main components in the definition"

1) [B]Deviation[/B] from accuracy.

2) [B]Unintentional [/B] deviation.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=Purple]Warning: For Chili only - The English, Latin, French connection gives a meaning of missing the Mark. Interestingly, this is also what the Hebrew word for "sin" means. Is the Secret meaning of the title of the Gospel of "Mark" that "Mark" stands for Jesus' behavior which was right on the Mark and a Standard for correct behavior and not for the name of some person? And, am I the first person to discover this because in order to properly understand what something means you have to not believe it's true?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue]Now, the question at hand is what about statements in the Bible that deviate from literal accuracy,(exaggeration), but were [B]intended[/B] to deviate from literal accuracy?

The Christian Bible is dominated by claims of the Impossible. Let's look at the supposed Resurrection as an example and again, I never believed in any type of Resurrection until I saw John Travolta in Pulp Fiction. As far as the original Gospel, my guess is that the author did not intend a literal Resurrection. The "Resurrection" had a Natural explanation that after Jesus died his teachings and story were Resurrected by his followers and lived on. Therefore, since I think this does not contain both elements of error, unintentional ([B]intentional figurative to communicate[/B]) and deviation, I would not call it an error in the original.

However, just as my definition of "Christian Bible" is the theoretical Bible used by [B]current[/B] Christianity, my definition of the intent of the meaning of verses of the Christian Bible is the theoretical understanding by [B]current [/B] Christianity. This understanding is that the resurrection is literal and therefore contains both elements of error as Impossible claims are inaccurate and there is no defense of a figurative meaning to explain the literal inaccuracy.

The issue of the Impossible may be my only Peter Peeve in Polemics. Observation and Experience as well as the Dictionary tell us that the Impossible is Impossible. There is no better evidence than Observation and Experience. Therefore, [B]there are [SIZE=3]no[/SIZE] clearer errors in the Christian Bible than the claims of the Impossible[/B]. Ironically, Christians take the Impossible claims of the Christian Bible as evidence that the Possible claims are also true while Skeptics conversely doubt the Possible claims because of the Impossible claims. Skeptics should [B]always[/B] identify the Impossible as an issue in Polemics and not just silently accept the Christian assumption that the Impossible is Possible as well as point out to Christians that as long as there is a [B]Possible explanation[/B] for the "resurrection" such as unknown people at unknown times and places and for unknown reasons wrote about a "resurrection" which was copied and edited by unknown people for two thousand years who had motive and opportunity to not properly research and change whatever was originally written and intended, there is No Impossible explanation for the "resurrection".


Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible list contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine which could be harmful to your credibility when trying to convince a Fundamentalist to count to ten commandments before killing an abortion Doctor because according to the Christian Bible killing is always a sin.

Personal tools