will read it later

Since you wrote this in a response to my post, and your comment doesn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the thread, so I’ll assume it’s directed at me. (If you’re commenting on a general tendency, regard this as an attempt to show that this post doesn’t show this tendency.)

You’re making the common mistake of seeing an attack on an argument as an attack on the conclusion. See, an argument is an attempt to show that a set of premises reach a certain conclusion. However, to deny the soundness of an argument isn’t to deny its conclusion! Have a look at this:

If it’s raining, the street will be wet.
It’s raining.
Therefore, the street is wet.

I could deny the second premise and say, “No, it’s not raining”. The street could still be wet: perhaps someone spilled some water on it. I could deny the first and say, “No, because I just put a giant roof on top of the street”. The street, still, could be wet. So, as you see, to deny one of the premises is not to deny the conclusion.

Further, to deny the validity of an argument is not to deny its conclusion. Say, for instance, that we have this argument:

If it’s raining, the street will be wet.
It’s raining.
Therefore, France is in Europe.

The jump from the two premises to the conclusion isn’t right. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. This argument is not valid.

But it is still true that France is in Europe.

So we can deny either the argument’s validity or its soundness without denying its conclusion.

In this case, I can attack the “God of the Gaps” argument. If I manage to show that one of the premises of the argument is wrong, or that one of the steps doesn’t follow from the others, I have shown that this argument doesn’t prove its conclusion. But I haven’t showed, or even attempted to show that there is no God, i.e., that the conclusion is false.

I could be “Jew, Christian, Muslim, agnostic, etc.” and still make this blog post without being inconsistent.

The same way, I can deny one myth and believe another.

Why do I have to believe in the literal Bible in order to be a person who ponders God? Why do I have to rest that “faith” on the Exodus or the Resurrection? Why can’t I have a brain and a spirit, and seek to nurture both?

I think the issues of the exodus and the resurrection receive such criticism these days because they are the primary events that have given Jews and Christians their identity for thousands of years.

That means that anyone seeking to invalidate the faith is going to have to deal with these two key events. So, given the importance of the issue, i do not want to do it a disservice. Needless to say, I have heard these issues raised before, and I still believe wholeheartedly in Christianity. I would wager that you all have heard the responses I might give and maintain your position as well.

So I wonder if I might do what I can to provide a dialogue with one of the experts themselves. The de-Convert has been gracious indeed by offering that I could start my own discussion on this topic, but i really doubt that I would bring anything of value to the table. Would you all enjoy a dialogue with one of my professors? We have been thinking about adding to our blog a guest contributor section, and I cant think of a better place to start then here, but if you guys wouldnt find it valuable I might consider something else. I also dont want to seem like I am passing the buck, I just want to offer the best we can on the subject. Let me know your thoughts.

The problem with any instructor or institution, religionist or not, is that they develop their “pet scholars” – people that the instruction or institution use time and time again. The problem with this, whether it is a good or bad scholar, is that students become very narrow-minded and unable to make their own judgments. They like these scholars because they get to the conclusions that they want to prove (i.e. Jesus is myth or Jesus is God).

But again, what assumption am I making? You professed a belief that Moses wrote the Torah, did you not? This hypothesis would not be taken seriously by the vast majority of critical scholars. I do very much believe that you have as open of a mind as you can, but my comment is suggesting that within the educational framework, it is nearly impossible – the resources for critical and questioning scholarship appears nil in this case.

I’m sorry, I’m getting mixed up. Are you asking for sources on this question concerning the Hebrew tradition or other traditions (such as the example I gave in Hinduism)?

Sorry, I’m honestly getting confused in trying to follow the various threads of conversation here.

“To think that Jews were the only ones that had a mythology that was claimed to be historically accurate is to willfully close your eyes.”

I said “most of them.” (Comment #19) I was using the example to illustrate a common reality, not make absolute claims about it. I am aware that claiming as you say would be ludicrous.

Also, you are making quite the judgment of ancient peoples yourself in assuming that they did not see some of their myths as symbolic and anecdotal. Can we please come to the middle of the road in agreement (as I truly think we are), and not make it an “either/or” argument, rather than a “both/and” argument?

Heather,

“with the JEPD doctumentary hypothesis,”
I know nothing of that hypothesis, so I don’t want to comment on it out of ignorance. Mike would really be a better one to expand on this point, as he is far more knowledgeable in this area than I.

TA,
“And this unquestioning faith in tradition is why I didn’t go to seminary school.”

Why must we make assumptions here? Have I not proven that I do question and critique what I read? I am not making an unquestioning assumption in stating this, but basing it on tradition, as well as other sources. I will have to get back to you on specifics, but I thought I earned my way outside of that “box” by now.

Come on guys, I am working to engage in this discussion critically and fairly. At the minimum, please afford me the benefit of the doubt.