# Question about Matthew for Christians **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984 "2014-12-23T02:26:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/321 "2015-01-21T21:11:57Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18065676&postcount=300), as you should have easily found. > > Well, if you ever want to contribute anything of substance, rather than just your scorecard (or direct personal insults), feel free. I think you need to take a remedial class in reading comprehension if you think that the first link is talking about “tone” and the comments from Miller are in any way insulting. It’s no wonder you’re not winning this debate - and hey, this atheist’s scorebook agrees with Millers. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/322 "2015-01-21T21:26:50Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I think you need to take a remedial class in reading comprehension if you think that the first link is talking about “tone” and the comments from Miller are in any way insulting. Sorry, I thought you might have read at least my last couple of posts before jumping in to criticize me. I was referring to his [previous “contribution.”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18030044&postcount=223) > [@](#): > > and hey, this atheist’s scorebook agrees with Millers. And I make the same suggestion to you — don’t just say I’m wrong; show me where I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/323 "2015-01-21T21:40:05Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Sorry, I thought you might have read at least my last couple of posts before jumping in to criticize me. I was referring to his [previous “contribution.”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18030044&postcount=223) > > And I make the same suggestion to you — don’t just say I’m wrong; show me where I’m wrong. I’ve read this thead, and your comments, as they unfolded. You clearly don’t get what **tomndebb** has been saying, and there would be no way for me to explain it better than him - And again - that post (from **Miller** ) -is not directly insulting you - in fact, he goes out of his way to be sure to be very clear about what he is referring to in that post. You, at this point, are taking offense just to take offense when none is given, and in many posts in this thread have been very insulting with the ad hominem attacks. (another posters ‘whining’ etc). This is why you’re losing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/324 "2015-01-21T21:40:23Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > That itself is a mischaracterization of my posts. I used that phrase exactly once, was clearly joking (it was very late), and did not attribute it to you. How I “persistently” characterized your position was exactly what you yourself repeat below, stripped to its essentials: that Leo (and his Vatican staff) was too indoctrinated by 19th-century attitudes to think clearly about (arguably) the most important single aspect of Church history. Oh, anything that gets you caught can just be written off as a “joke.” OK. I am glad we have that straight. And I see that you are still infatuated with the word “indoctrinated.” Now you claim that I have said that Pope Leo was “indoctrinated,” when I have said no such thing. I have certainly never said that he could not think clearly on the topic and if that is your take-away, then it is pretty clear that you have spent no effort actually understanding the discussion. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Yes, that’s what you wrote, to which you added, “And, to a certain extent, Leo was just wrong.” In other words, he had been indoctrinated by 19th-century culture, to the point that he couldn’t see the truth. And you say that to show that you were not disparaging him. However, you evidently consider yourself immune to 20th-century indoctrination, and you also consider it disparaging when I opine that you are not. More silly claims of “indoctrination,” again claiming that I have made such an accusation when I have not. My explicit point regarding Pope Leo was that he was speaking at a time before new information became available. That is not an accusation of fault and it is certainly not an accusation of “indoctrination.” > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Chrysostom would not help you. To use one of your own examples, he took every word of Genesis 2 literally. Since you’ve already said you’re not going to budge, I won’t waste my time finding it again, but a week or two ago I found a beautiful homily from Chrysostom on Original Sin, in which he refuted the argument that since Adam had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, he had a childlike mind, andcould not be responsible for disobeying God. > > He cited Genesis 2, where Adam named all the animals, and said that the fact that Adam could name thousands of animals so well that we still use his names to this day (heh), and keep all of that straight without repeating a name or making a mistake, shows that he was unbelievably intelligent, and clearly knew right from wrong. Thus, he was fully responsible for disobeying God in Genesis 3. So? I did not claim that Chrysostym did not accept the scriptures, as written. He did, however, note that contradictions could be found in them that did not have to be reconciled. (He did so in a minor point, so I have not attempted to use him to buttress my argument. I just noted that I wish that his perspective had become more prominent among church authors.) > [@TonySinclair](#): > > In short, he used the literal truth, of a passage you have claimed could not possibly be taken literally by a scholar, to prove his point about a fundamental tenet of the Church. This is bullshit on two levels. First, I have never claimed that “a passage . . . could not possibly be taken literally by a scholar.” Second, he is using the passage in exactly the way that I would expect him to use it, drawing a moral principle from the Story. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Wrong, for two reasons. First, as has been shown, what you consider to be “conflicting” can be easily resolved by believers. Your first “rebuttal” fails because it has not happened. The argument Thomas Aquinas used dipped into Aristotelian philosophy, relying on potency and act and other philosophical constructs to get around the clear contradiction in the text. Others holding to a strictly literal interpretation use other methods. None of them are “easily resolved” so much as they are resolved by necessity. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > You have never addressed my question about current fundamentalists. How is it that they can study the Bible assiduously, and still take every word literally, even in the face of 21st-century attitudes and scientific knowledge? Unless you think they’re all idiots, the only answer is indoctrination. And if that’s true in a time when every third-grader knows enough science to make the Bible seem absurd, how much more easily would the same mechanism have worked a thousand years ago, when there was absolutely no reason to doubt anything in the Bible? > > Second, even if you found someone who flatly declared that the literal meaning of a purportedly historical part of the Bible was nonsense, all that would prove is that he was heretical, at least in that instance. I have never claimed that everyone has always agreed with official Church doctrine. Far from it. But in this case, there _is_ a True Scotsman, and he is defined by the Vatican. This reads as though you are looking at a totally different thread in which I have not even posted. I have never claimed that anyone would declare any part of the bible as “nonsense.” (Why do you keep attributing to me things that I have not said?) As to the Vatican’s declarations, I note a rather long absence of such declarations before Leo’s. The church has always maintained that the bible was true. Regarding current Biblical Literalists, I have not expressed an opinion because they are not relevant to this discussion. I am perfectly willing to accept your favorite word, indoctrination, to explain their beliefs. That, however, has rather little relevance to whether or not people of prior ages accepted contradictory passages as both true. Indoctrination certainly plays a part. However, so does a general approach to scripture. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Not so. Just as you do with Leo, I choose to bestow the most charitable possible motive to you for your failure to see plain facts. Piffle. All of my arguments have been based in the science of anthropology along with historical records. Using “indoctrination” is simply a way to undercut my statements and there is nothing “charitable” about it. Along with your accusations regarding “integrity,” you are simply being disparaging. Since I have not expressed any of my personal beliefs, your claims or inferences about my beliefs are not relevant to the discussion. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > You evidently did not read my link to Aquinas, until after I actually included an excerpt in one of my posts. And the “appropriate” response to my other citations from Popes, scholars, Vatican councils, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (all of which contradicted your statements) would have been to accept them as authoritative, at least until you could find something equally authoritative to refute them, rather than simply yawning and saying they were contaminated by [del]19th-century[/del] [del]Enlightenment[/del] 16th-century attitudes, moving the goalposts each time I posted a new citation, until you were demanding a citation from a thousand years or more ago. Which I supplied. I read the Aquinas link, but, as I noted, the version I used did not use the same scriptural citation notation, so I did miss the point as I noted. The response to “citations from Popes, scholars, Vatican councils, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (all of which contradicted your statements)” was deliberate and does not change. Every one of them was written in the period when the church was wrestling with the conflict between science and theology and at a time when numerous authors were challenging the scriptures as “false.” Relying on Aquinas for their resolution, their decisions make sense. However, that does not mean that they were historically accurate. I do not take something as “authoritative” if I find that it is in direct conflict with other facts. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/325 "2015-01-21T21:50:45Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Andros’ very helpful contribution to this thread was in response to a gross error I made, which [I corrected](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18065950&postcount=304) about an hour after I made it. I am disappointed, but not shocked, that neither of you acknowledged the correction. Had I been “helpfully contributing” about the error you made, I would certainly have commented upon it with thanks for the clarification. My “helpful contribution,” however, was not at all in reference to your leaving off “literally true.” Honestly, it was a correction that I found unnecessary, as your gist was clear the first time. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/326 "2015-01-21T22:41:33Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I’ve read this thead, and your comments, as they unfolded. > > You clearly don’t get what **tomndebb** has been saying, and there would be no way for me to explain it better than him - I believe that last part, at least. > [@](#): > > And again - that post (from **Miller** ) -is not directly insulting you - in fact, he goes out of his way to be sure to be very clear about what he is referring to in that post. It’s not insulting for me to tell you that you lack imagination and intellect? I shudder to think what your life must be like in order for you to believe that. > [@](#): > > You, at this point, are taking offense just to take offense when none is given, and in many posts in this thread have been very insulting with the ad hominem attacks. (another posters ‘whining’ etc). > > This is why you’re losing. Impossible. I have been reliably informed that my tone has nothing to do with it — that I’m losing on the self-appointed experts’ scorecards because I’m just wrong. But I note that, again, you’ve offered nothing to demonstrate that. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/327 "2015-01-21T23:02:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [QUOTE=TonySinclair] > Second, even if you found someone who flatly declared that the literal meaning of a purportedly historical part of the Bible was nonsense, all that would prove is that he was heretical, at least in that instance. I have never claimed that everyone has always agreed with official Church doctrine. Far from it. But in this case, there is a True Scotsman, and he is defined by the Vatican. This reads as though you are looking at a totally different thread in which I have not even posted. I have never claimed that anyone would declare any part of the bible as “nonsense.” (Why do you keep attributing to me things that I have not said?) [/QUOTE] I’ll just let this excerpt stand as representative of your debate technique. I said even if you found X, it wouldn’t prove your point, and your response is, Why do you keep falsely claiming I said X? I didn’t. The clear meaning of my statement was that even if you found something beyond what you claimed, it still wouldn’t prove your point, but you don’t see that, and neither does your fan club. Well, we will clearly never see eye to eye, and I have better things to do than waste my time answering snipes from people who won’t post anything but snipes, so thanks for the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/328 "2015-01-21T23:08:39Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > But I note that, again, you’ve offered nothing to demonstrate that. We don’t need to. **tom** has already done all the heavy lifting for us there. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/329 "2015-01-21T23:09:40Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I believe that last part, at least. ehhh- whatever. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > It’s not insulting for me to tell you that you lack imagination and intellect? I shudder to think what your life must be like in order for you to believe that. He is very specific in what you lack there ‘… to see something else’ - it is not a general slam about you. It is evident in your posts as well as in your general tone. It’s actually constructive criticism. That you can’t see that is your failing - and only backs up the comment. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Impossible. I have been reliably informed that my tone has nothing to do with it — that I’m losing on the self-appointed experts’ scorecards because I’m just wrong. But I note that, again, you’ve offered nothing to demonstrate that. You have a reasonable argument on a couple of fine points - but you are not listening to the responses - you keep resorting to attacks (‘his whining’ ) (‘his indoctrination’). I don’t have to demonstrate you as ‘wrong’ - you’re simply losing the argument and these things don’t help you. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/330 "2015-01-22T03:33:26Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I’ll just let this excerpt stand as representative of your debate technique. I said even if you found X, it wouldn’t prove your point, and your response is, Why do you keep falsely claiming I said X? > > I didn’t. The clear meaning of my statement was that even if you found something beyond what you claimed, it still wouldn’t prove your point, but you don’t see that, and neither does your fan club. Actually, there was no “clear meaning.” You have truncated the portion of your post that I quoted to give it a different appearance than the section which I quoted and to which I responded. You have also truncated my response to give it a different appearance. At this point, (since I have already conceded one issue), I am simply noting that as you continue to post you continue to post errors–and i am correcting those. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/331 "2015-01-22T03:58:56Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > You should read his posts again. He said that early scholars could accept miracles, but not contradictions. They could believe Genesis 1, but not Genesis 2, since in his opinion they were in conflict. As an example of things I need to correct: the above has no similarity to anything I have posted. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984/332 "2015-01-22T12:16:35Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > To pick a nit, I and many other atheists entirely agree with Phelps’ interpretation of scripture. Mosaic Law clearly states that men who have sex with other men should be executed, and Jesus clearly endorses every line of Mosaic Law. I really don’t understand how anyone can see it differently. Which is why I would reject the Bible as having any kind of moral authority, even if it weren’t so riddled with errors, absurdities, and contradictions. > > I had a huge problem with Phelps’ _obsession_ with that one aspect of Mosaic Law, but that’s a different question. And I still don’t understand how Christians, Jews, and Muslims can venerate any part of a book that contains such hateful “morality,” but that’s also a different question. Actually Jesus made exceptions to the Mosaic Law, he spoke of David eating the tabernacle bread when he was hungry, stopped the people from stoning the Prostitute. He also seemed to have been quoted as saying "I give you a new law;“That you love one another” He didn’t tell people to judge one another or try to convert others . He told his followers to spread the good news that the kingdom of God was at hand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-matthew-for-christians/707984.md?page=16)