Jayan wrote:But if you were true skeptics, then you would recognise your own biases
Boy, you're like a logical fallacy machine
in this post, aren't you? Here you are begging the question: Assuming as a given that your opponents don't recognise and interrogate their own biases when that's what it's incumbent on you to prove.
But the thing is, modern "scientists" don't know when their beliefs turn into unreasonable biases. That's how we get textbooks for grade school kids talking about Evolution
No, the way we get that is 150 years of concerted attempts to disprove the theory of evolution none of which has passed muster according to the rigourous demands of the scientific method. It's ID theorists who are assuming the conclusion (i.e. there must be an intelligent cause underlying the development of life) and then adducing proofs in order to demonstrate it.
If Christians take the time to reflect and sort through their beliefs, we can be even less obnoxiously biased than you atheists.
Anyone who takes the time to systematically interrogate their beliefs will be less biased than someone who doesn't. It doesn't matter what their underlying belief system is. If you believe otherwise, then you need to make the case instead of arguing from authority.
What I meant by my statement, was more that you, who do not even believe in Christ’s existence are discussing what languages he spoke/learned. Does that not strike you as ironic? It even sounded at moments a bit like you were mocking Jesus.
1. You don't have to believe in the Christ to believe in the existence of Jesus.
2. You don't have to believe in the existence of Jesus to conjecture what languages he would've
he had existed.
If someone posted on this forum saying, "I'm writing a short story about fictional character who was a petty tradesman's son in the ancient Near East. Can someone tell me whether he would've Persian or not?" would it be reasonable to answer, "Well, since he never existed, he couldn't have spoken Persian, Q.E.D."?
Give me a break! If you’re thinking I’m Catholic and that my faith “was shaken” at the thought that Christ didn’t know Latin, I’m not Catholic by any stretch of the imagination (even if I were, you should know better…Latin is no longer the language of the Catholic Church as of the Second Vatican…even I know that).
I only chose Latin because it's the language suggested for Jesus in this thread that there's the least amount of justification for. I don't assume anything about your belief system that you don't explicitly tell me.
It is not because I was upset, it was because of a rare passing moment of postmodernism (something you know very well, I gather), thinking that because this forum was not created to be a religious discussion forum, then we shouldn’t be discussing such private and subjective matters here. Surely you can relate to that.
We discuss subjective matters here all the time. Do you also object to the "What countries have you visited?" thread? It's far more stuffed with subjectivity than this discussion here.
I find it strange that you use the word "private" here. Jesus was very much a public figure; why should discussion of his characteristics be off-limits? Moreover, the idea that one's faith is between you and your deity and no one else is very much a Protestant Christian one. I mean, talk about viewing a subject solely through the lens of your own personal biases!