Wednesday, September 20, 2023

First Half of a Video by Kristi Burke

Metatron Made Some Mistakes in His Video on Historic Truth being Objective · First Half of a Video by Kristi Burke · Continuing with Kristi Burke

Is it Reasonable to Reject Biblical Claims? | Thoughts From an Ex-Christian
Kristi Burke, 17 sept. 2023

3:28 "Supernatural claims"

4:03 I haven't seen any war action.

I haven't been to Ukraine, sure, but I still have never seen any war action.

Nor have I seen a peace treaty being signed. Sure the Versailles Treaty or the Capitulation of Appomatox aren't myths?

4:11 "because supernatural claims cannot be proven"

As I have been accused of being a flat earther, I do take good looks at some nooks and crannies flat earth is really coming from.

"I don't believe in Portuguese claims like Magellan, because Portuguese claims cannot be proven. Round earth claims cannot be proven"

Said by any and every Hindu in Goa who was flat earther because of distrust in the Portuguese ...

I have personally not been to China, and not further into the Pacific than a stretch of Newport beach in CA ... can you prove the Pacific exists and China exists, without appealing to stories, like that of Marco Polo, nicknamed Il Millione or politicians claiming to visit Xí Jìnpíng, and who said politicians never lie? You know the joke:

"Q How do you know a politician is lying?"
"A He's moving the lips"

Something which also might apply to salespeople ...

4:18 "science is our best way to make conclusions about our reality"

Because scientists never lie?
Or because they are never mistaken in how they conclude?
A N D ... what is the relevance in relation to supernatural claims?

For the last of these, the fact is, any given science will definitely study natural claims, and by the very fact of doing so, will be leaving out whether nature exists on its own or exists in dependence of something supernatural, and if so, how much or little that interferes ...

4:21 "the scientific method"

No science ever was content with what Popper called the scientific method.

All of them, without exception, need lots of pieces of method that are not involved in Popper, and if there be such a thing as a "science about what actually happened" ... it definitely is so different from what sciences are usually like, that it needs a method of its own, very distinct from it.

Wait - heard of history, going by eyewitness testimony?

4:33 Peer review is definitely not part of the "scientific method" as outlined by Popper.

It's just (especially in pre-publishing peer review, a kind of censorship) the protocol followed currently by researchers in many fields over many universities.

4:39 "it's literally a process in which you attempt to prove yourself wrong"

Literally this is so since Popper.

In fact, no.

The good test is not asking a scientist "did you attempt to prove yourself wrong" - "yes" - "what happened" - "I failed" - "oh, you are probably right, then" ... the good test is when scientists and other types of researchers attempt to prove each other wrong. It's called "debate" ...

4:58 Two methods for studying the supernatural world.
  • a) metaphysics (including but not limited to irreducible complexity and Kalam)
  • b) history (supernatural, by definition, is sth independent of nature, but of which nature is not independent - could show in miracles ... hence, is it most likely that Matthew:
    • i) lied
    • ij) was mistaken
    • iij) or wrote the truth?)

5:36 "not verifiable"
According to what methodology?

Or according to your parrotting of a favourite scientist you looked up to?

What you mention are (mostly) events, and you have not given any ground for there being a different process of verifying a talking snake from an orally handed down genealogy, or a water jar getting water in and putting wine out than verifying whether a specific man went to a specific party.

7:04 "they ate something"

Seems to be already refuted:

"Some believe[5] the dancing could have been brought on by food poisoning caused by the toxic and psychoactive chemical products of ergot fungi (ergotism), which grows commonly on grains (such as rye) used for baking bread. Ergotamine is the main psychoactive product of ergot fungi; it is structurally related to the drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25) and is the substance from which LSD-25 was originally synthesized. The same fungus has also been implicated in other major historical anomalies, including the Salem witch trials.[11][12]"

"In The Lancet, John Waller argues that "this theory does not seem tenable, since it is unlikely that those poisoned by ergot could have danced for days at a time. Nor would so many people have reacted to its psychotropic chemicals in the same way. The ergotism theory also fails to explain why almost every outbreak occurred somewhere along the Rhine and Moselle rivers, areas linked by water but with quite different climates and crops".[2]"

And as you are so into peer reviews, The Lancet after all is a peer reviewed paper.

"sth psychological"

W a i t ...

"Waller speculates that the dancing was "stress-induced psychosis" on a mass level, since the region where the people danced was riddled with starvation and disease, and the inhabitants tended to be superstitious. Seven other cases of dancing plague were reported in the same region during the medieval era.[1]"

Footnote links to Viegas, Jennifer (August 1, 2008). "'Dancing Plague' and Other Odd Afflictions Explained : Discovery News". Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved 2023-04-24.

The problem with her idea it's a natural result of psychological factors is, she only gives a parallel, equally unexplained, which equally warrant the question of whether there was something demonic involved.

"1962. Tanganyika, East Africa. In a rural boarding school on the shore of Lake Victoria, dozens of adolescent girls began to laugh and cry uncontrollably. After trying to stem these mysterious breakouts for a month and a half, school officials gave up and sent everyone home. As the girls fanned out to their homes across the region, their behaviors spread too. Over 1000 people were affected. Families and governments enlisted all kinds of experts to give them a clue about what was going on. Eventually, an official diagnosis: mass hysteria. About two years after it began, the epidemic petered out. Nobody died. Everybody recovered."

Two notes on it:
  • 1) they were adolescent, meaning staying in school was perhaps not the best choice for their chastity;
  • 2) 1962 was the year when Vatican II was convoked - if the girls in Tanganyika were not Catholic, God could have decided Lutherans and Anglicans needed to give a good chuckle to a false council actually helping their bad cause.

"The Christian population is largely composed of Roman Catholics and Protestants. Among the latter, the large number of Lutherans and Moravians point to the German past of the country while the number of Anglicans point to the British history of Tanganyika. All of them have had some influence in varying degrees from the Walokole movement (East African Revival), which has also been fertile ground for the spread of charismatic and Pentecostal groups."

7:20 "Lack of consistency"

9:04 If a medical faculty tells a psychologist to do real bonding, and an epidemologist to do measures of hygiene ... (neither case extended to all of human society outside clinics, btw) ... is the medical faculty being inconsistent? Or is it dealing with different actors in different situations in ways that are different according to the different roles and situations?

A military conquering a homeland - better needed then than in 1948 - and a caste of people living extra holy (we Catholics refer to some of the things you quoted as "Evangelical counsels" = not for everyone!) =|= NOT the same thing.

Dealing with people whose human sacrificing idolatry was a plague worse than Nazism and Communism combined (at least in immediate gruesomeness, in Communism abortions are at least hidden away) and dealing with normal people around you =|= ALSO NOT the same thing.

Can you expound on your thoughts? I’m confused as to what you believe, respectfully

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Go through it again, @BETH-dr4ko.

I was adressing the claim of inconsistency between the directives given to Joshua in taking Canaan and the directives given in the Sermon on the Mount by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

THEN ask if there is still some particular that is unclear to you.

9:50 Theophany vs revelation of God's nature=|= AGAIN NOT the same thing.

10:27 "Timing of written events"

11:04 the claim that Synoptics were written after AD 70 comes so late (recent centuries) as to be very untrustworthy compared to Church internal traditions of when ...

11:53 Have you heard of sth called "learning by heart"?

Also, Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew, traditionally the earliest Gospel, 30's or 40's.

12:02 Do you remember "A, B, C, D"?

Do you remember lyrics of any song?

Have you ever learned a text by heart?

Can repeating a text you have learned by heart over and over help you accurate recall?

I know for a fact that people can learn not just the Apostolic but also the Nicene Creed by heart.

Now go to the longest of the texts, I suspect it is the Sermon on the Mount, and see how many Nicene Creeds long it is ...?

I checked it myself.

CLXX words Nicene Creed in Latin

DCCXV words Matthew V (except intro)
DLXIX Matthew VI

MDCCXXIII words Sermon on the Mount = c. 10 Nicene Creeds.

12:22 Take a look at this part:

Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Once you hear that and learn it by heart, what are the chances you get any of it wrong, as not just not the right word, but not the right meaning?

Or this part:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. 10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.

In fact, this has also a very clear thematic unity, which makes the miss-out unlikely.

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

You have a parallel between salt and light ... but the city on a mountain comes in a bit off beside the other parts.

Can St. Matthew have learned sth by heart, forgotten part of it, and kept what he recalled?

Or can he have mixed up what was said on this occasion, with other ones where "candle on a candlestick" and "city on a mountain" are put in parallel?

Well, it could be Jesus actually did add this quirky extra on the spot, as it stands, but if He didn't, if a part connected with city is lost or if mountain and bushel are paralleled because of bushel mentioned in other lessons Our Lord gave, does it matter, as the teaching is obviously the same (and one which Protestants don't like - visible perpetuity of the Church, as Jesus founded it = no room for the Reformation)?

Would it matter?

12:32 Falling asleep is a process that takes some minutes.

Those words were probably what they heard before falling asleep. Perhaps heard repeated while waking up a few times very uneasily and falling back into sleep.

They were close enough for Jesus to stop praying and wake them up when He wanted to.

12:51 How many oral retellings does it take before sth becomes unreliable?

It is not just a question of how many inbetweens, but also of, how long and detailed instruction is each giving the next one. It was given the culture of oral teaching very arguably a very far cry from telephone game (no long or detailed instruction even allowed).

I note the prayer in Gethsemane was written down in Matthew, by one of the original earwitnesses (you can hear what someone's saying even if you have your eyes closed while going to sleep).

12:57 "God breathed the story"

In fact one God-breathed word in this connexion is:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.
Another one is:
And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.

This pretty much excludes the theory that Gospel writers were unaware of the story apart from the inspiration from God they were receiving while writing. On the contrary, normal acts of memory and research are at work, and God inspires recalling exactly the right thing or chosing exactly the right version, not any kind of new knowledge of it coming ex nihilo.

13:37 Time to:
  • prop Jesus up as a God, though He did not call Himself so
  • go from Jewish Apocalyptic cult into actual separate religion
  • to create subgroups of Christians (with different ideologies)
  • write / discover new things

These operations actually:
  • take more than just time
  • do not explain the records of the miracles.

Unless you go for people having time to get martyred and then deciding to change their message with some frauds ...

The subgroups with different ideologies are outside the Church that Jesus founded and which wrote the Gospels, they are prime examples of "heresy" ....

14:14 What contradictions?

14:55 How about dedicating your next week (that's not your entire life, I hope) to finding three events in history (outside miracles) and asking yourself exactly how much they could have got wrong and why?