I'm sure you spent at least some time correcting the record for those whom you thought mattered, for example, the principal, if the complaint got that far.

Its like my dear friend Phil used to say.... one news account comes out and says five people did this and that and another comes out and says it was ten and another says it was just two.  Conflicting?  Contradicting?  Exaggerated?  Perhaps- but nonetheless something happened, and people did it, and if the event is significant enough, eventually the basic facts are settled and established.  Phil liked to rely on first reports to make his argument, ignoring the process afterwards where accuracy is often, in most cases, finally achieved.

Good example:  The attack on the WTCs on 9-11.  First reports put casualties in the tens of thousands, and there was varying perspectives on the extent of the damage.  Though these inaccuracies existed at the time, no one was stupid enough to think that on account of those inaccuracies we ought not believe that the WTCs had been attacked and that there were likely many dead.  Fine, we were here, we saw it with our own eyes on TV.

But 2,000 years from now, historians sifting through the accounts will see the many discrepancies and even THEY won't be stupid enough to think that on account of these discrepancies it ought be held that no such attack ever happened and that thousands died.  I take that back.  Secular historians have been known to draw all sorts of nutty conclusions, especially if the events are set far enough back in time that their conclusions are not in principle falsifiable.  But you get the idea well enough.  Eventually the details of 9-11 became more or less established, despite the variance in the first reports.

There are nuts who deny the holocaust today- but of course due to the significance of the event challenged, there are many voices presenting the opposite case to set the record straight.  An impartial and objective examination will reveal that the holocaust was a reality- conflicting and exaggerated accounts notwithstanding.

Boy, I just know there is a reason I like you Val, but I just can't quite put my finger on it....

 

I'm glad that Cop raised his voice in this thread.  When I created this thread, It specifically had to do with "pictures".  Pictures of an event only went so far...then there were no longer pictures.  What we are left with is what can be discovered through archeology or sayings.  Then we are obviously left with the most important aspect...which is the interpretation.

""Your error was in thinking my categorization had anything to do with numbers.""

"What got to me was your reference to "many voices" that "set the record straight". Not being a mind reader, I had only your words to go on."

   

Fair enough.  It wasn't without justification.  But you still have quite obviously missed the point.  The discussion was about how unreliable reporting can be and how quickly exaggeration can take place.  So, my talking about the 'many voices' in regards to the holocaust had absolutely nothing, zilch, zero relevance to whether the holocaust was true or not, and everything to do with the fact that there is incentive to correct misinformation in proportion to the significance of the event by people who have some interest in setting the record straight.

"Outside to the gospel accounts, and some questionable passages in a handful of non-Christian writings (Josephus, Tacitus...), I know of nothing else. Do you have something else to offer?"

Sure.  However, I am not so certain it would matter.  I think that you have placed unjustified faith in scholars who support your POV, as indicated, for example, by your view that the passages in Josephus and Tacitus are 'questionable.'  They may be 'questionable' in regards to support for the resurrection, but they absolutely are not in regards to Jesus' existence.  I also think that you will not objectively evaluate what I offer to you on your own steam, but will quickly rely on 'experts' to make up your mind.  That is not to say that I am unwilling to go down that road.  This thread is obviously not the right place for it, though.

"I don't think that Christians dismiss Homeric intuitions out of hand. They do so for quite rational reasons. One must consider the role of faith in religion."

This may be quite a schok to you, but in my own case, it has absolutely nothing to do with faith.

"Faith is the suspension of disbelief. "

That is your definition of faith.  It is not mine, nor the defininition employed by many educated Christians I am acquainted with.   I don't suppose you'd allow Christians to define the word they are using for themselves, though, would you?  You can see just how a conversation between us is going to go when you get to define the words that properly reside in my domain, and not in yours.

"If that is your only point, then I feel quite comfortable in disagreeing with you."

You can disagree with me, of course, but it would not be reasonable to do so.

"After all, people may have some ulterior motive for not setting the record straight."

People may?   Do you think this is the general rule?  I think the general rule is pretty well easily demonstrable as being the opposite.   Let's see.

*TheAntiChrist setting the record straight that he did not steal the microphone.
*The holocaust hoax, as already mentioned.
*Scooter Libby in regards to allegations he deliberatly leaked Wilson's wife's name.
*President Bush in regards to Democratic allegations that he lied about pre-war intelligence.
*Tom Delay in regards to allegations he laundered campaign money.
*Michael Jackson in regards to charges he molested children.
*David Keaton,Samuel A. Poole,Wilbert Lee,Freddie Pitts,James Creamer,Christopher Spicer,Thomas Gladish,Richard Greer,Ronald Keine,Clarence Smith,Delbert Tibbs,Earl Charles,Jonathan Treadway,Gary Beeman,Jerry Banks,Larry Hicks,Charles Ray Giddens,Michael Linder,Johnny Ross,Ernest (Shuhaa) Graham,Annibal Jaramillo,Lawyer Johnson,Larry Fisher,Anthony Brown,Neil Ferber,Clifford Henry Bowen,Joseph Green Brown,Perry Cobb,Darby (Williams) Tillis,Vernon McManus,Anthony Ray Peek,Juan Ramos,Robert Wallace,Richard Neal,Jones Willie Brown,Larry Troy,Randall Dale Adams,Robert Cox,Timothy Hennis,James Richardson,Clarence Brandley,John C. Skelton,Dale Johnston,Jimmy Lee Mathers,Gary Nelson,Bradley P. Scott,Charles Smith,Jay C. Smith,Kirk Bloodsworth,Federico M. Macias,Walter McMillian,Gregory R. Wilhoit,James Robison,Muneer Deeb,Andrew Golden,Joseph Burrows,Adolph Munson,Robert Charles Cruz,Rolando Cruz,Alejandro Hernandez,Sabrina Butler,Verneal Jimerson,Dennis Williams,Roberto Miranda,Gary Gauger,Troy Lee Jones,Carl Lawson,David Wayne Grannis,Ricardo Aldape Guerra,Benjamin Harris,Robert Hayes,Christopher McCrimmon,Randall Padgett,James Bo Cochran,Robert Lee Miller, Jr.,Curtis Kyles,Shareef Cousin,Anthony Porter,Steven Smith,Ronald Williamson,Ronald Jones,Clarence Dexter, Jr.,Warren Douglas Manning,Alfred Rivera,Steve Manning,Eric Clemmons,Joseph Nahume Green,Earl Washington,William Nieves,Frank Lee Smith,Michael Graham,Albert Burrell,Oscar Lee Morris,Peter Limone,Gary Drinkard,Joaquin Jose Martinez,Jeremy Sheets,Charles Fain,Juan Roberto Melendez,Ray Krone,Thomas Kimbell, Jr.,Larry Osborne,Aaron Patterson,Madison Hobley,Leroy Orange,Stanley Howard,Rudolph Holton,Lemuel Prion,Wesley Quick,John Thompson,Timothy Howard,Gary Lamar James,Joseph Amrine,Nicholas Yarris,Alan Gell,Gordon Steidl,Laurence Adams,Dan L. Bright,Ryan Matthews,Ernest Ray Willis,Derrick Jamison,Harold Wilson

These are death row inmates who have been exonerated.

*Do you really want me to keep going here?

"I'm sure you've heard to parable of the emperor and his new clothes."

Yea, it's a parable.  It does not change the weight of my argument, which I will re-state:

"there is incentive to correct misinformation in proportion to the significance of the event by people who have some interest in setting the record straight."

Which people?  Those with interest in setting the record straight.  So I am talking about a category where those who do not want to set the record straight are precluded in the very statement that I made.  Your 'emporer' does not belong in the category that I delineated.  I also referenced that the significance of the event is important, and I could go on to add further that the degree of distortion is important, as well as a couple of other important and clearly detectable patterns of human nature that are relevant to the truth-establishing process.

I gave examples from modern history to illustrate this, but I need not look far in previous centuries or even millenia for more examples.

You know what the word 'apologia' means, right?  Any idea how many of those there have been throughout history?

"I think that definitions can only be based on usage, not fiat."

In many cases, but not this one.  The Christian usage is heavily dependent on the usage in a certain set of documents known familiarly as the 'New Testament.'  This would be the definition most Christians would use, and if you wish to superimpose modern usage on top of what Christians use, that would be your choice- and it would almost certainly be equivocation.

"I am not going to agree on whatever idiosyncratic definition you choose to give a word."

As I just pointed out, there is nothing idiosyncratic here at all.  For better or for worse, Christians lean heavily on a set of documents and the subsequent interpretation of those documents to define their words. So:

"You have to show that your definition conforms to common usage."

Actually, no.  I have three options.  One, I can throw it back on you and say it is up to you to demonstrate that YOUR definition conforms to common usage, as you were the first person to offer up a definition.  Pending that, I can still accept your definition, recognizing that Christians have an entirely different meaning, and still deny that this is anything of the sort of adventure that Christians are engaged int.  Finally, I can point out that no arguments are won by equiovocation- Christians simply mean something else when they use the word, so attempts to import some other meaning and pretend that it is that meaning that Christians must be meaning would be fallacious.