Any reasons to be a Christian?

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 10:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282603#post282603)
Fideist345:

Not if the person has not expressly asked us to. When did Spong ever ask a televangelist to rebuke him if the televangelist thought he was getting out of line? How about the other way around?

This is an interesting discussion. Is your requirement for (to make up a word) rebukability that the person being rebuked specifically request a rebuking if they're in the wrong? I've got to disagree here. Who's to say that we should not rebuke Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell for some of the hate and crap that they spew? No matter how sincere they are, if they're preaching hatred and lies in the name of Christ, they need to be stopped and countered. This, I believe is what Jesus was referring to in Mark 9:42. If somebody is caught up in the lies of Phelps or Falwell that distort and pervert the loving gospel of Christ, then they need to be corrected before they drag others down with them.

I don't think we need to wait for Phelps to ask us to tell him he's in the wrong. He's doing a great deal of harm and dragging the name of Jesus through the mud with his anti-gay rhetoric.


So, Jesus, right out of the blue, rebukes Pharisees just because? Where? I saw none of this in Mark.

Well, if you want some obvious examples in Matthew, look no further than the 7 "woes" of Matthew 23. If that's not a rebuke, I don't know what is. He even gives his reasons for rebuking them. As for Mark, a rebuke doesn't have to mean a harsh one; it can just mean correcting error. There are plenty of examples of Jesus doing just this in Mark. Witness the "Lord of the Sabbath" passage, the "questions about divorce" passage, "render unto Caesar", and Mark 7 where he corrects them about eating with unclean people.


Agreed! I do think self-defense would be Okay with God, though.

Might be. Could depend on the circumstances. "Turn the other cheek" seems to me to indicate if at all possible, to avoid fighting back- let your actions and your strength speak for themselves to your agressor.


Each writer had his emphasis on telling the good news.

Each community had it's own gospel. They did not see things exactly the same way. Which one was correct?

Did you get the point of what I wrote in my last post about how all of the gospels see Jesus as a redeemer sent from God. All four of them are pretty clear on this. If you'd like, I'll take some time and find some quotes for you. While all four focus on different aspects of Jesus's ministry, probably because of their different purposes in writing the gospels, I really don't see how one can say that John's Jesus is different than Luke's Jesus.


Yep, it could, but I think they are not comfortable in telling Jesus who is in and who is out.

That was certainly a thrust of Jesus rebuking his disciples for trying to stop the man casting out demons in Jesus's name we discussed before. However, as I pointed out, one of the keys is "in my name". There is a delineating factor as to who is a Christian and who is not. I'm not sure if you've read Mere Christianity, but in my opinion Lewis does a nice job of explaining it. He strips away all denominations and doctrinal differences and all the "trappings" of man-made religion that cause schisms amid Christians and focuses on Jesus himself. That's the "mere" Christianity. What do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 7:13 and 14? There is an "in and out list" unfortunately, something to which the NT is unanimous about. Jesus himself is the delineation of who is in and who is not.


I agree again! But I emphasize dialogue, not monologue. Thanks for the dialogue, Rando. You're a very pleasant person!

You're welcome Fideist! Please let me know if I cease to be dialoguing and start monologuing? I want to listen to you too, because you have a lot of wisdom to share while still standing firm on my own principles (if they're as firm as I believe them to be).

By the way, your choice of usernames: I looked up fideism in several references, and they agreed that it was the theological position of denying a "rational" basis for a belief while stressing that it can be knowable in other ways. Is this accurate? It certainly sounds like your position from how I've gotten to know you lately.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 09:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283463#post283463)
Amazing Rando:



The NASB also makes the distinction between before and after. These are the three versions I usually cross-reference when I have a difficulty with a passage. If I'm STILL stumped, I'll look at something even simpler, like the Message.

Like I said, the NRSV translation is generally best; or at least neutral. If I want to check up on 'em I read the Greek (mine is the NA 26). Without bringing it fully into American, the section reads:
having come in power.

Thanks for editing that in! When I took a quick glance at your post, I was kinda flabbergasted when I thought you were calling me a schmuck and a blowhard!

Nah! You can always assume that I'm speaking in a level voice unless I'm joking or responding to someone who's just gone personal. I usually cuff 'em, 'cause I'm still too ego-filled not to. :) I'm just not a good enough writer to always get it (neutral) across. I am trying, though!

By the way, I like your paraphrasing!


Thanks very much! I'd like to read yours, if you'd like to give it a whirl.


I can totally imagine Jesus feeling like this while trying to get through to his blockhead disciples. (This portrayal of the disciples incompetance is one of the things that suggests authenticity to me).


Or maybe a polemic? Mark tends to make Peter look a bit like a dullard, if you ask me. This passage, I think, can be read on several levels.


That's certainly true, and a big part of the message, but I think you're forgetting some of the specifics of the passage. "In my name" and "in the name of Christ" suggest to me that this passage is talking about other believers specifically. Like an admonition to not rebuke other Christians from their ministries just because they don't belong to the same Christian sect or denomination as you.


Bingo!


It is, as you said, shucking the emphasis off of "me" and putting it in the message of the gospel! Just as you said: "You fools! Its not about you". Still, don't overlook the "in my name" and "in the name of Christ". I think they're important in this context.


I wasn't. Just attempting to save bandwidth, eyeball rolling and heads (scratching). :smile:


A very powerful passage indeed! Again, you're overloking the specifics though: "little ones who believe in me" is very important. I think, along the lines of Jude and 2 Peter, that this is referring to anyone who causes spiritually "weaker" believers to stumble and fall.


I take it as meaning those who are just beginning, and end up engaging in polemical fights about which (disciple's) view is more important, while the basic message is lost.


Almost always associated with purity. I guess so, conjuring up images of a "refining fire" right?


Right.


I think "salted with fire" in the context of a refining fire means that we are all going to be tested- face trials and temptations. This might be why Jesus asked his disciples to pray that they do not "the time of trial" in the passage from Luke we were discussing earlier.


This appears to be one of those other levels I was alluding to. First, I read it by itself to get under the surface message. Then, if I like, I bring other writings/teachings/traditions to bear to see what else might be apparent. My problem with some exegetes is that they either stop with a surface reading, or start by comparing/contrasting with what they already (think they) know.


I like your explanation of salt as a person's "essence". I can tell you've contemplated long and hard about this passage, with some very interesting results!


Thanks! Not all that hard or that long. This one "spoke" to me right away.


So your test, judging by what you've written in this post, is the test of unselfishness?


The test of appropriate priorities. Selfishness is unavoidable unless you're Jesus. :)


Hmm. Very interesting and admirable!


Thanks again!


This raises a very good question though: in taking the focus off oneself, what should one refocus on?


The Good. No matter how you define or personalize it.

I believe that Jesus's answer would be to put the emphasis on God. "Give God the glory for the great things he has done" as the old hymn goes.


Jesus sang American Protestant hymns? Just kidding, I get your point. :)


That's what I believe his call for repentence in Mark 1 is all about- turn away from your selfish pursuits, and worship God in love. I think I'll only be meditating to the effect of praising God. I wonder if meditation and prayer are the same thing?


Sort of, but not really. Try Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation. Most libraries have it. He tried very hard to get there through prayer/contemplation. But later in his life he had a lot of contact with Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen (derived from Taoist teachings) Buddhist. It ended up being a two way street where both benefited. It's a truly wonderful story.


They certainly can be, all depending on your focus, in my opinion.


I definitely agree that they can, but it requires much balancing
(not recommended for beginners). Did you listen to Sharon Salzburg’s Loving Kindness? You don't have to stay with her exact language, you know. You could insert "may God grant you" in place of the simpler "may you".

May God grant that you live a life of ease, Rando (A life of ease here, means a lack of doubt, a lack of selfish grasping, a lack of envy, a lack of anxiety...). That's a prayer, no?

I'm not far enough along in my practice to do that yet. The phrase is repeated over and over. The longer the phrase, the more you have to resort to coming close to being entirely conscious (self aware), but I don't see why it couldn't be done.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 10:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283536#post283536)
Amazing Rando:




“ Yesterday @ 10:07 PM post located here Fideist345: Not if the person has not expressly asked us to. When did Spong ever ask a televangelist to rebuke him if the televangelist thought he was getting out of line? How about the other way around?


This is an interesting discussion. Is your requirement for (to make up a word) rebukability that the person being rebuked specifically request a rebuking if they're in the wrong?

Yep.

I've got to disagree here.

Okay! I like disagreements! Well, some anyway.

Who's to say that we should not rebuke Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell for some of the hate and crap that they spew?

So, who attacked Phelps or Falwell overtly, thus expressly asking for a rebuke from them? Most likely, nobody. Again, most likely, they just took it upon themselves to go judging others.

No matter how sincere they are, if they're preaching hatred and lies in the name of Christ, they need to be stopped and countered. This, I believe is what Jesus was referring to in Mark 9:42. If somebody is caught up in the lies of Phelps or Falwell that distort and pervert the loving gospel of Christ, then they need to be corrected before they drag others down with them.

Let's not be anachronistic here Rando! They need to be sued for rebuking without first being asked to -- or having a license! :laughing:

I don't think we need to wait for Phelps to ask us to tell him he's in the wrong. He's doing a great deal of harm and dragging the name of Jesus through the mud with his anti-gay rhetoric.

You don't think that by spewing his rhetoric, he's asking?

“ So, Jesus, right out of the blue, rebukes Pharisees just because? Where? I saw none of this in Mark. ”

Well, if you want some obvious examples in Matthew, look no further than the 7 "woes" of Matthew 23. If that's not a rebuke, I don't know what is.

But is it out of the blue? Did not the "Pharisees" attempt to entrap him (22:15) followed by the Sadducees and then yet another Pharisee asking Jesus another question to trap him?

He even gives his reasons for rebuking them.

Who is he rebuking, though? Put some other self-elevated believers in that slot of woe to you _________!

As for Mark, a rebuke doesn't have to mean a harsh one; it can just mean correcting error. There are plenty of examples of Jesus doing just this in Mark. Witness the "Lord of the Sabbath" passage, the "questions about divorce" passage, "render unto Caesar", and Mark 7 where he corrects them about eating with unclean people.

Ummm.... Rando? Did I not mention looking stuff up? I'm not going to go looking for verses. I suspect though, that these rebukes were not instigated by Jesus, but were brought on by the rebukee! How's that for a word?!? :)

“ Agreed! I do think self-defense would be Okay with God, though. ”

Might be. Could depend on the circumstances. "Turn the other cheek" seems to me to indicate if at all possible, to avoid fighting back- let your actions and your strength speak for themselves to your agressor.

Nobody is indicating "turn the other cheek to a guy with a knife" though, eh?


“ Each writer had his emphasis on telling the good news. Each community had it's own gospel. They did not see things exactly the same way. Which one was correct? ”

Did you get the point of what I wrote in my last post about how all of the gospels see Jesus as a redeemer sent from God. All four of them are pretty clear on this. If you'd like, I'll take some time and find some quotes for you.

I got it. I think I'll let this drop. :)

“ Yep, it could, but I think they are not comfortable in telling Jesus who is in and who is out. ”

That was certainly a thrust of Jesus rebuking his disciples for trying to stop the man casting out demons in Jesus's name we discussed before. However, as I pointed out, one of the keys is "in my name". There is a delineating factor as to who is a Christian and who is not. I'm not sure if you've read Mere Christianity,

Yep.

but in my opinion Lewis does a nice job of explaining it. He strips away all denominations and doctrinal differences and all the "trappings" of man-made religion that cause schisms amid Christians and focuses on Jesus himself. That's the "mere" Christianity. What do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 7:13 and 14?

Prejudice and judging are easy. Most people engage in it. Beware. The passage immediately preceding this one and the first passage in 7 give the context.

There is an "in and out list" unfortunately, something to which the NT is unanimous about. Jesus himself is the delineation of who is in and who is not.

There are such lists if the person reading them is a surface reader. One who does not recognize theme and context. That is laid out pretty clearly (to me) in 7:7-11 and other places.

“ I agree again! But I emphasize dialogue, not monologue. Thanks for the dialogue, Rando. You're a very pleasant person! ”

You're welcome Fideist! Please let me know if I cease to be dialoguing and start monologuing? I want to listen to you too, because you have a lot of wisdom to share while still standing firm on my own principles (if they're as firm as I believe them to be).

You also have a lot of wisdom. And your principals are just fine.

By the way, your choice of usernames: I looked up fideism in several references, and they agreed that it was the theological position of denying a "rational" basis for a belief while stressing that it can be knowable in other ways. Is this accurate? It certainly sounds like your position from how I've gotten to know you lately.

Kierkegaard (who influenced Barth and Heidegger and Unamuno) was a Fideist, William James was a Fideist, Pascal was ( I think) and Kant may have been. Most of these found that their arguments could not hold up in "Rational" terms. All arguments for belief are essentially inductive. Not being able to use induction frustrated Kant to no end. He wrote basically the treatise on Pure Reason, but then wrote one on Practical reason! I would recommend the second. Rationalism has it's limits as does evidentialism (where's your evidence?), as do all philosophical schools. So, yeah, I guess the dictionary description is close. But you can shorten it to: Fideists believe because it "feels" right. It makes the Rationalists smile! :)

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283611#post283611)
Fideist345:

Like I said, the NRSV translation is generally best; or at least neutral. If I want to check up on 'em I read the Greek (mine is the NA 26). Without bringing it fully into American, the section reads:

Oh how I wish I could read Greek! Grab a Strong's and read it in the original. Nothing can compare! That'll be a project for sometime in the future I think. No time right now.


Nah! You can always assume that I'm speaking in a level voice unless I'm joking or responding to someone who's just gone personal. I usually cuff 'em, 'cause I'm still too ego-filled not to. :) I'm just not a good enough writer to always get it (neutral) across. I am trying, though!

Yeah I'm gettin to realize that now. You do seem to be a very even tempered person. I try to keep my sarcasm to an absolute minimum both for clarity and to avoid condescension.


By the way, I like your paraphrasing!
Thanks very much! I'd like to read yours, if you'd like to give it a whirl.

Hmm. You sure about this? It might be pretty awkward!


Or maybe a polemic? Mark tends to make Peter look a bit like a dullard, if you ask me. This passage, I think, can be read on several levels.

Maybe a polemic, but it sounds to me more like the unhappy memories of a man who is totally ashamed of his past behavior. Remember that church (Eusabius, Papias, et. al) believed that Mark was written by someone who personally knew Peter. I can picture Peter in his more private moments regretting being such a fool in front of his Master the entire time he knew him, not to mention the denials!


I wasn't. Just attempting to save bandwidth, eyeball rolling and heads (scratching). :smile:

Hehe. Sometimes we sacrifice clarity in our pursuit of brevity.


I take it as meaning those who are just beginning, and end up engaging in polemical fights about which (disciple's) view is more important, while the basic message is lost.

Yes! That's another important thing we can get out of it. Reminds me of the analogy in Hebrews 5:11-14 about milk and solid food. Hebrews is one of my favorite epistles, followed by the Johns, and then 1 Corinthians.


This appears to be one of those other levels I was alluding to. First, I read it by itself to get under the surface message. Then, if I like, I bring other writings/teachings/traditions to bear to see what else might be apparent. My problem with some exegetes is that they either stop with a surface reading, or start by comparing/contrasting with what they already (think they) know.

One of my biggest pet peeves is quoting one Bible verse (or part of one) to make a point, because of the great possibility of pulling the quote out of context. For that reason, I don't really like reading "subject-oriented" Bible studies. I like taking the particular book and reading it start to finish (or in chunks), and imaging I'm it's original audience.


The test of appropriate priorities. Selfishness is unavoidable unless you're Jesus. :)

You know, after learning of Jesus's philosophy of universal love, I was astounded to learn that the word I use for it "altruism" wasn't invented until the mid 1800's by the founder of positivism, August Comte. Just a bit of useless trivia that made my jaw drop, considering what altruism is and who Comte was.


This raises a very good question though: in taking the focus off oneself, what should one refocus on?

The Good. No matter how you define or personalize it.

A noble idea, but keep in mind that there are so many different ideas of what the Good is, some are contradictory and some are mutually exclusive. Problems can arise then.


Sort of, but not really. Try Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation. Most libraries have it. He tried very hard to get there through prayer/contemplation. But later in his life he had a lot of contact with Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen (derived from Taoist teachings) Buddhist. It ended up being a two way street where both benefited. It's a truly wonderful story.

Interesting. I'll admit that your kind of meditation is foreign to me at this point, but I can understand and relate to the goals that you said you have for your mediation i.e. diminishing the self and becoming more aware of one's surroundings. For my quiet time, I like to just get comfortable, tell God all my worries and concerns, and try to listen to him. Sometimes its easier than others. Its a conversation for me, not really a mental training exercise.

I have a feeling that if we attatched electrodes to the brains of a person in prayer, and compared the results with those of a person mediating, we'd probably see that they light up different areas of the brain. Prayer most likely lights up the conversation part while meditation looks more like introspection to scientific instruments. I could be wrong, but I wonder if there is such a study out there?


I definitely agree that they can, but it requires much balancing
(not recommended for beginners). Did you listen to Sharon Salzburg’s Loving Kindness? You don't have to stay with her exact language, you know. You could insert "may God grant you" in place of the simpler "may you".

Can't say I've ever heard of Sharon Saltzburg. Quick google brings up many links of meditation styles. She's a bit of a guru I take it?

Have you ever read Dark Night of the Soul, by Saint John of the Cross? I think he wrote that while in a dungeon-like prison during the Inquisition. An amazing piece of poetry that reaches many people in a different ways.


May God grant that you live a life of ease, Rando (A life of ease here, means a lack of doubt, a lack of selfish grasping, a lack of envy, a lack of anxiety...). That's a prayer, no?

Sure is! I think it's the kind of prayer Jesus would like us to get to the point where we could pray it about anybody- wishing everybody, even our most bitter enemies, the best for their lives.

I think we ought to try and keep our posts to one at a time if possible. I believe that double posting is against forum rules for some reason.

EDIT TO ADD:

Here's part 2:


Who's to say that we should not rebuke Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell for some of the hate and crap that they spew?

So, who attacked Phelps or Falwell overtly, thus expressly asking for a rebuke from them? Most likely, nobody. Again, most likely, they just took it upon themselves to go judging others.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that one ought to wait until being specifically asked to rebuke someone. The two men I made mention of are horrible hypocrates, whose lies and hatred are an afront to the faith that I hold dear and that they claim to profess.


You don't think that by spewing his rhetoric, he's asking?

Wait a minute- do you think that by Phelps spewing his rhetoric, he's giving tacit approval to be rubuked? I think he certainly deserves it, but I don't think that he's in the humble frame of mind to be asking others to correct him when he's wrong.


But is it out of the blue? Did not the "Pharisees" attempt to entrap him (22:15) followed by the Sadducees and then yet another Pharisee asking Jesus another question to trap him?

May I ask why you put Pharisees in quotes? Well yes, the gospels are pretty clear that they tried to trap him in his words. I'm trying to follow here- when do you feel that a rebuke is in order, and when would rebuking be an inappropriate response? Would you consider rebuking someone who called himself a Christian, yet led a Ku Klux Klan rally? I don't think those types of people will be willing to humble themselves to overtly request a correction. Their rhetoric just runs too deep in their veins.



(referring to Matthew 7:13-14)

Prejudice and judging are easy. Most people engage in it. Beware. The passage immediately preceding this one and the first passage in 7 give the context.

You feel that the "narrow and wide gate" passage is more closely associated with the "do not judge" passage of verses 1-6? Hmm. Interesting idea. In that case, I guess this would be more of an admonition to avoid prejudicing yourself against others.

I think it ties a bit more closely with the passage right after it- verses 15-23- about being wary of false prophets. Makes a bit more sense to me to follow a teaching on how narrow the path that leads to life is with a discussion of those who would lead you off that path. In my opinion, it ties in well with the passage from Mark 9:42 about leading others astray. I sure wouldn't want a millstone around my neck!


There are such lists if the person reading them is a surface reader. One who does not recognize theme and context. That is laid out pretty clearly (to me) in 7:7-11 and other places.

That might be! I hope I'm not skimming surfaces here too much. I look at the parallel passage to Matthew 7:7-11 in Luke 11: 5-12, and it's in an entirely different context. Same words and themes, just different context. The "ask, seek, knock" passage is immediately following the Lord's prayer in Luke, leading me to believe it's more about prayer and petitioning of the Lord, than it is about not being prejudiced or selfish. That's why I think Matthew 7:13-14 goes better with the verses immediately after it than it does the verses 1-6.


Kierkegaard (who influenced Barth and Heidegger and Unamuno) was a Fideist, William James was a Fideist, Pascal was ( I think) and Kant may have been. Most of these found that their arguments could not hold up in "Rational" terms. All arguments for belief are essentially inductive. Not being able to use induction frustrated Kant to no end. He wrote basically the treatise on Pure Reason, but then wrote one on Practical reason! I would recommend the second. Rationalism has it's limits as does evidentialism (where's your evidence?), as do all philosophical schools. So, yeah, I guess the dictionary description is close. But you can shorten it to: Fideists believe because it "feels" right. It makes the Rationalists smile! :)

I was going to ask you what you thought of Barth. Yeah, Kierkegaard thought that the "leap of faith" was nessesary for belief. I once tried plodding through Critique of Pure Reason, and it was waaaaaay over my head! Maybe I'll try again in a few years.

That's true. I agree with you there about the limits of logic and rationality. That said, I chose to become a Christian about three years ago because I found the evidence convincing as to its truth claims, not because it "felt right" or anything. Since I made the intellectual plunge, the fruits of the Spirit have followed and have grown since I began my walk with the Lord. For me, they came after the evidence led me to the decision. I don't think we all work the same way. God reaches some of us through reason or evidence, and for others of us, the process is much more intuitive as you describe. It's just so important that we don't utilize one to the exclusion of the other though, since the sum of the two makes for the whole experience. It's so easy to miss out on a great deal of life when you're locked in the rational mindset 24/7, but at the same time, when one relies on sensation and "gut feeling" almost exclusively, truth is often missed. I'm a firm believer that it takes a good balance of both ways of knowing to live a well-rounded and happy life.

Does that make any sense?

[Fideist345]

[QUOTE]Yesterday @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285789#post285789)
Amazing Rando:



Oh how I wish I could read Greek! Grab a Strong's and read it in the original. Nothing can compare! That'll be a project for sometime in the future I think. No time right now.


:) Reading Greek only helps in the way you describe, if you can think in Greek! All I can do is make out the words and then go to a Greek Grammar to try and figure out the rest (I use Mounce). And even then, the concepts don't always make it through the language change.


Yeah I'm gettin to realize that now. You do seem to be a very even tempered person.


You too!


I try to keep my sarcasm to an absolute minimum both for clarity and to avoid condescension.


Good thinking! :)


Maybe a polemic, but it sounds to me more like the unhappy memories of a man who is totally ashamed of his past behavior.


Or all of the above and much more.


Yes! That's another important thing we can get out of it. Reminds me of the analogy in Hebrews 5:11-14 about milk and solid food. Hebrews is one of my favorite epistles, followed by the Johns, and then 1 Corinthians.


I think we read Hebrews very differently. But that's okay with me. :)


One of my biggest pet peeves is quoting one Bible verse (or part of one) to make a point, because of the great possibility of pulling the quote out of context. For that reason, I don't really like reading "subject-oriented" Bible studies. I like taking the particular book and reading it start to finish (or in chunks), and imaging I'm it's original audience.


I commend you! Proof texting is a fruitless enterprise, if you ask me.


“ The test of appropriate priorities. Selfishness is unavoidable unless you're Jesus. :) ”

You know, after learning of Jesus's philosophy of universal love, I was astounded to learn that the word I use for it "altruism" wasn't invented until the mid 1800's by the founder of positivism, August Comte. Just a bit of useless trivia that made my jaw drop, considering what altruism is and who Comte was.


Yeah, but it's always been benevolence, hasn't it?


“ This raises a very good question though: in taking the focus off oneself, what should one refocus on? The Good. No matter how you define or personalize it. ”



A noble idea, but keep in mind that there are so many different ideas of what the Good is, some are contradictory and some are mutually exclusive. Problems can arise then.


:) Not the Good, The Good. That is something you can rationalize your way to, and make a truth claim concerning it. We can rationally know what The Good is. See the classic philosophers for the arguments for and against.


Interesting. I'll admit that your kind of meditation is foreign to me at this point, but I can understand and relate to the goals that you said you have for your mediation i.e. diminishing the self and becoming more aware of one's surroundings.


Rando, this must be your interpretation of what I said, cause I'm quite sure that I specifically pointed out that my meditation method is primarily to still the mind? Get thoughts under control? Being aware of one's surroundings is part of the method to diminish self in order to still the mind. That is, I can analyze my breath or something else without being endlessly distracted by the usual jumble of random thoughts that occupy people's minds. At that point I can choose to meld (so to speak) or consider an idea dispassionately. Believe me, there is a distinction.


For my quiet time, I like to just get comfortable, tell God all my worries and concerns, and try to listen to him. Sometimes its easier than others. .


If you apply method...


Its a conversation for me, not really a mental training exercise. .


Okay!


I have a feeling that if we attatched electrodes to the brains of a person in prayer, and compared the results with those of a person mediating, we'd probably see that they light up different areas of the brain. Prayer most likely lights up the conversation part while meditation looks more like introspection to scientific instruments. I could be wrong, but I wonder if there is such a study out there? .


I'm sure there is. Not all rationalists are all that secure in their decision to leave "religion" out of their lives. I know that one study has been done in order to prove that NDEs are merely a brain function and therefore no big deal (to those decided to try and replicate an NDE experience).


Can't say I've ever heard of Sharon Saltzburg. Quick google brings up many links of meditation styles. She's a bit of a guru I take it?


She's the voice in the link I sent you from Oprah. I take it you didn't give it a try. Too bad, Rando. I assure you, it is not going to subvert your belief system.


Have you ever read Dark Night of the Soul, by Saint John of the Cross? I think he wrote that while in a dungeon-like prison during the Inquisition. An amazing piece of poetry that reaches many people in a different ways.


John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila both attempted to systematize a method for weeding out some of the more dubious devotions. John believed there were inherent dangers in the Interior Life (which is in itself a sort of superstition to me). It works, but it is a very difficult method. So, Ignatius (of Jesuit fame) developed a method (Spiritual Exercises) that requires less effort and can be accomplished during a retreat lasting maybe a few weeks.


I think we ought to try and keep our posts to one at a time if possible. I believe that double posting is against forum rules for some reason.


Fine.


EDIT TO ADD:

Here's part 2:

“ Who's to say that we should not rebuke Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell for some of the hate and crap that they spew? So, who attacked Phelps or Falwell overtly, thus expressly asking for a rebuke from them? Most likely, nobody. Again, most likely, they just took it upon themselves to go judging others. ”



I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that one ought to wait until being specifically asked to rebuke someone. The two men I made mention of are horrible hypocrates, whose lies and hatred are an afront to the faith that I hold dear and that they claim to profess.


I think the whole rebuking concept is an attempt to rationalize judging others. Sorry, but that's what it appears to be from anyone who finds rebuking distasteful. I am not God. I do not get to make God's decisions. Neither am I Jesus, and I don't get to make his decisions either. For me to place myself on that level is exceeding presumptuous, no matter what proof text anyone employs to rationalize the rebuking concept of the modern era.

“ You don't think that by spewing his rhetoric, he's asking? ”

Wait a minute- do you think that by Phelps spewing his rhetoric, he's giving tacit approval to be rubuked? I think he certainly deserves it, but I don't think that he's in the humble frame of mind to be asking others to correct him when he's wrong.


I think this comes under the heading of attacking others who have not accepted your authority either implicitly or explicitly. His "rebukes" are nothing more than outright attacks, IMO. And those who reply in kind are engaging in the same sort of behavior. A simple "we do not agree with this sort of thinking or rhetoric" from other Christian groups would sufficiently distance Phelps.


“ But is it out of the blue? Did not the "Pharisees" attempt to entrap him (22:15) followed by the Sadducees and then yet another Pharisee asking Jesus another question to trap him? ”



May I ask why you put Pharisees in quotes?


Lots of reasons. One is that the "Pharisee", may actually be the reader. Another is that as the gospels get older they go from being mildly dissaproving of Jews to an almost anti-Semitic tone. And many more not edvident in a surface reading.


Well yes, the gospels are pretty clear that they tried to trap him in his words. I'm trying to follow here- when do you feel that a rebuke is in order, and when would rebuking be an inappropriate response? Would you consider rebuking someone who called himself a Christian, yet led a Ku Klux Klan rally?


No! Those people don't recognize any authority I might claim. When you became a disciple of Jesus, you recognized his authority. But Jesus was also Jewish and a Rabbi, so there is another set of authority rules in place when it comes to conversations with other Jewish people, especially scribes and so on.


You feel that the "narrow and wide gate" passage is more closely associated with the "do not judge" passage of verses 1-6? Hmm. Interesting idea. In that case, I guess this would be more of an admonition to avoid prejudicing yourself against others.


I think it ties a bit more closely with the passage right after it- verses 15-23- about being wary of false prophets. Makes a bit more sense to me to follow a teaching on how narrow the path that leads to life is with a discussion of those who would lead you off that path. In my opinion, it ties in well with the passage from Mark 9:42 about leading others astray. I sure wouldn't want a millstone around my neck!


Me either. (shaking head)


“ There are such lists if the person reading them is a surface reader. One who does not recognize theme and context. That is laid out pretty clearly (to me) in 7:7-11 and other places. ”

That might be! I hope I'm not skimming surfaces here too much. I look at the parallel passage to Matthew 7:7-11 in Luke 11: 5-12, and it's in an entirely different context. Same words and themes, just different context. The "ask, seek, knock" passage is immediately following the Lord's prayer in Luke, leading me to believe it's more about prayer and petitioning of the Lord, than it is about not being prejudiced or selfish.


It seems to be about being persistent in asking or seeking, don't you think? Persevere. You’re doing something important. Do not accept the easy answer until you're certain it is the only answer. Plumb the depths, even if your nature (friend) screams: "do not bother me!"


I was going to ask you what you thought of Barth. Yeah, Kierkegaard thought that the "leap of faith" was nessesary for belief. I once tried plodding through Critique of Pure Reason, and it was waaaaaay over my head! Maybe I'll try again in a few years.


(nodding) The language usage is almost archaic. That does not help.


That's true. I agree with you there about the limits of logic and rationality. That said, I chose to become a Christian about three years ago because I found the evidence convincing as to its truth claims, not because it "felt right" or anything.


The fate of evidentialists is to eventually be asked the same question they ask others: Where is your evidence, that this method is the (sometimes only) method? The dissembler will say: It's self evident! But the honest thinker will admit that there is no evidence to support her claim.


Since I made the intellectual plunge, the fruits of the Spirit have followed and have grown since I began my walk with the Lord. For me, they came after the evidence led me to the decision. I don't think we all work the same way. God reaches some of us through reason or evidence, and for others of us, the process is much more intuitive as you describe. It's just so important that we don't utilize one to the exclusion of the other though, since the sum of the two makes for the whole experience. It's so easy to miss out on a great deal of life when you're locked in the rational mindset 24/7, but at the same time, when one relies on sensation and "gut feeling" almost exclusively, truth is often missed. I'm a firm believer that it takes a good balance of both ways of knowing to live a well-rounded and happy life.

Me too. I attempt to use rational method when it is called for. But I do not assume I will be able to answer truth statements about beliefs that are in essence intangible. I think far too many people become disillusioned when attempting to rationalize intangible beliefs. I think it is better not to make such a claim and focus more on the benefits of belief in the here and now. But as you say, that's just me.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287186#post287186)
Fideist345:

:) Reading Greek only helps in the way you describe, if you can think in Greek! All I can do is make out the words and then go to a Greek Grammar to try and figure out the rest (I use Mounce). And even then, the concepts don't always make it through the language change.

That’s true. If I can’t think like an ancient Greek, learning their language probably won’t help me very much, huh? Until I have a good knowledge of their culture and language, I suppose I’ll have to rely on the experts. I get your point about concepts not always transferring from one language to another. That’s the whole reason I want to learn Greek- so I don’t miss out on anything! I minored in Spanish in college, so I do have an appreciation for how concepts can be lost in the translation.


I think we read Hebrews very differently. But that's okay with me. :)

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on the other NT documents. To me, on one level anyway, Hebrews seems to be written as a treatise to Jewish Christians trying to show how Jesus fits in with the natural progression of divine revelation from the OT days.


One of my biggest pet peeves is quoting one Bible verse (or part of one) to make a point, because of the great possibility of pulling the quote out of context.

I commend you! Proof texting is a fruitless enterprise, if you ask me.

Take a look over in the thread “Morals for Unbelievers,” this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=286431#post286431) in particular. A rather incompetant skeptic named Jimbo barfs up a list of quotes from Jesus with no explanation attatched. They’re all horribly ripped from their context, and he provides no explanation of what he thinks they mean. His goal, apparently, was to show that Jesus wasn’t the “nice guy” we think he is. :doh: As if we had never read the passages before! In my subsequent posts on pages 3 and 4 of that thread, I try and show him why he’s being really foolish. Chsalvia offers about the wittiest satire of Jimbo I’ve heard in a long time. It’s worth a read if you haven’t already.


:) Not the Good, The Good. That is something you can rationalize your way to, and make a truth claim concerning it. We can rationally know what The Good is. See the classic philosophers for the arguments for and against.

Is The Good a principle of absolute morality, or is it something much greater than that? The reason I thought it might be a principle of morality is because you suggested we can rationalize our way there.


Rando, this must be your interpretation of what I said, cause I'm quite sure that I specifically pointed out that my meditation method is primarily to still the mind? Get thoughts under control? Being aware of one's surroundings is part of the method to diminish self in order to still the mind. That is, I can analyze my breath or something else without being endlessly distracted by the usual jumble of random thoughts that occupy people's minds. At that point I can choose to meld (so to speak) or consider an idea dispassionately. Believe me, there is a distinction.

Might be my fault. What I remember most distinctly was your exercise with the orange and trying to minimize yourself while making the orange greater. Sorry, I realize I wasn’t listening as well as I should have been. I’ve had these preconceived notions of what meditation is, and they were blocking me from understanding what it is to you. It’s very different for you than what I thought meditation was. I understand now! Forgive me?


For my quiet time, I like to just get comfortable, tell God all my worries and concerns, and try to listen to him. Sometimes its easier than others. .

If you apply method...

Now I think I understand you a bit more fully. I can increase the depth and usefulness of my prayer if I learn how to pray. Geez I’m sorry I didn’t understand you better before.


Not all rationalists are all that secure in their decision to leave "religion" out of their lives. I know that one study has been done in order to prove that NDEs are merely a brain function and therefore no big deal (to those decided to try and replicate an NDE experience).

There was a book out not too long ago called [u]Why God Won’t Go Away[u] by a Dr. Andrew Newberg. It concluded that mystical and NDE were all actual observable biological phenomenon in the brain. However they recognized the fact that even if they were a biological function, it didn’t rule out an actual encounter of a deity on some other level of reality. In effect, all their study proved was that mystical experiences are real, and are not in the imagination, and that we are indeed hard-wired for spirituality. I guess that’s all it really can prove.


She's the voice in the link I sent you from Oprah. I take it you didn't give it a try. Too bad, Rando. I assure you, it is not going to subvert your belief system.

I’ll be totally honest with you- that is one of my fears. Not about Suzan Saltzberg or meditation, but just in general. The parable of the sower is all to near in my heart about how easy it is to “fall away”. I try very hard to combat that fear and keep an open and honest mind toward the truth while remaining on the path Christ set for us. It’s not easy, and I can understand how it is that Armstrong’s “fundamentalists” we were discussing before can clam up and shut their hearts to anything that might cause them to “stumble” in the faith.

That said, I did just listen to all 7 minutes of Suzan Saltzberg’s “Loving Kindness” meditation because I felt bad about not listening to it before after you had suggested it. It certainly was very peaceful! I don’t think it’s the practice for me, however. For me, I need to keep focused on God and trying to love others. In addition, happiness, peacefulness, and freedom are very important, and very pleasant to experience in life, but they’re just feelings. I guess my notion of life isn’t to experience happiness, peacefulness and freedom for myself, but to help others to experience them in their own lives. To that end, I ask the Lord to help others to be happy, peacuful, and free and to use me in any way he can to help achieve that goal.


John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila both attempted to systematize a method for weeding out some of the more dubious devotions. John believed there were inherent dangers in the Interior Life (which is in itself a sort of superstition to me). It works, but it is a very difficult method. So, Ignatius (of Jesuit fame) developed a method (Spiritual Exercises) that requires less effort and can be accomplished during a retreat lasting maybe a few weeks.

You don’t see any possible dangers about living the Interior Life that might arise? I think that it’s got wonderful benefits if done the right way, but really can be harmful if you approach it from a selfish angle, for example. I’ve seen Ignatius of Loyola’s approach for reading the Bible, and I agree it’s really admirable and quite useful.


I think the whole rebuking concept is an attempt to rationalize judging others. Sorry, but that's what it appears to be from anyone who finds rebuking distasteful. I am not God. I do not get to make God's decisions. Neither am I Jesus, and I don't get to make his decisions either. For me to place myself on that level is exceeding presumptuous, no matter what proof text anyone employs to rationalize the rebuking concept of the modern era.

Do you feel that Jesus was the only one who really had a right to do any rebuking? Why do you think this is? (I’m guessing this may turn into a discussion of who you think Jesus was/is. If you don’t feel like going down that road, just say so, though I am curious.)


I think this comes under the heading of attacking others who have not accepted your authority either implicitly or explicitly. His "rebukes" are nothing more than outright attacks, IMO. And those who reply in kind are engaging in the same sort of behavior. A simple "we do not agree with this sort of thinking or rhetoric" from other Christian groups would sufficiently distance Phelps.

You’re right, all he really does is attack. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen him on TV or read anything he’s written, but it’s absolutely sickening, and he loves it that way. About authority: I know that they haven’t consented to be under our authority, but the issue is which authority they hold to. They claim that their authority is the Bible. So do we. Do you think it’s okay to try and show him how he’s wrong by using the authority he claims to defer to, rather than just saying that we disagree with him? The idea, of course, is that if he’s left to continue completely unchecked, he’ll do a tremendous amount of damage with his hatred. Many have tried to just ignore him, and he still doesn’t go away.


May I ask why you put Pharisees in quotes?

Lots of reasons. One is that the "Pharisee", may actually be the reader. Another is that as the gospels get older they go from being mildly dissaproving of Jews to an almost anti-Semitic tone. And many more not edvident in a surface reading.

Yes, some of Jesus’s rebuttals to the Pharisees certainly are timeless and can apply to anyone, regardless of religious affiliation. However there really was a powerful sect of Judaism called the Pharisees. They’re a historical group whose influence collapsed after the Temple was destroyed in AD 70. That’s why I was curious to see quotes around the name of an actual group of people. You put quotes around Pharisees, but not Sadducees, which was a bit confusing.


Well yes, the gospels are pretty clear that they tried to trap him in his words. I'm trying to follow here- when do you feel that a rebuke is in order, and when would rebuking be an inappropriate response? Would you consider rebuking someone who called himself a Christian, yet led a Ku Klux Klan rally?

No! Those people don't recognize any authority I might claim. When you became a disciple of Jesus, you recognized his authority. But Jesus was also Jewish and a Rabbi, so there is another set of authority rules in place when it comes to conversations with other Jewish people, especially scribes and so on.

You might not because you don’t identify yourself as a Christian, but can you see why Christians who hold the Bible as their authority would want to challenge a “Christian” in the Klan? As I said before, it’s dragging the name of Christ through the mud.


(RE: “ask, seek, knock”)
It seems to be about being persistent in asking or seeking, don't you think? Persevere. You’re doing something important. Do not accept the easy answer until you're certain it is the only answer. Plumb the depths, even if your nature (friend) screams: "do not bother me!"

Yep! in the case of Luke, being persistent in your petitioning of God.


The fate of evidentialists is to eventually be asked the same question they ask others: Where is your evidence, that this method is the (sometimes only) method? The dissembler will say: It's self evident! But the honest thinker will admit that there is no evidence to support her claim.

Right on! :thumb:


I attempt to use rational method when it is called for. But I do not assume I will be able to answer truth statements about beliefs that are in essence intangible. I think far too many people become disillusioned when attempting to rationalize intangible beliefs. I think it is better not to make such a claim and focus more on the benefits of belief in the here and now. But as you say, that's just me.

Good point. I often fall into the trap, especially here on this particular forum, of being suckered into trying to explain really non-rational concepts like the atonement or the trinity or even the possibility of miracles in rational terms to skeptics who won’t accept anything BUT rationality. It’s a lost cause!

Still, if I didn’t think that the evidence did suggest in all likelihood Jesus’s physically rising from the dead, I wouldn’t be a Christian. The spiritual truths of the Bible became evident to me AFTER I was convinced of the rational truths. Not everybody works that way, but that’s how it happened for me.

[Fideist345]

I minored in Spanish in college, so I do have an appreciation for how concepts can be lost in the translation.

In that case, I'll leave the expert analysis to you. I really struggle with languages.


“ I think we read Hebrews very differently. But that's okay with me. :) ”

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on the other NT documents. To me, on one level anyway, Hebrews seems to be written as a treatise to Jewish Christians trying to show how Jesus fits in with the natural progression of divine revelation from the OT days.

Basically, for me, the gospels are "where it's at!" I see the epistles as some theologian's best guesses as to what Jesus might have been. I find that kind of speculation about as important as attempting to figure out why Einstein was as intelligent as he was.


Take a look over in the thread “Morals for Unbelievers,” this post in particular. A rather incompetant skeptic named Jimbo barfs up a list of quotes from Jesus with no explanation attatched. They’re all horribly ripped from their context, and he provides no explanation of what he thinks they mean. His goal, apparently, was to show that Jesus wasn’t the “nice guy” we think he is. As if we had never read the passages before! In my subsequent posts on pages 3 and 4 of that thread, I try and show him why he’s being really foolish. Chsalvia offers about the wittiest satire of Jimbo I’ve heard in a long time. It’s worth a read if you haven’t already.

I've read it, thanks. I think sometimes you have to realize when some angry or disaffected person is baiting you. In my view, the best answer is no answer. But I do understand how difficult it is to just let it slide without any redirection!


“ :) Not the Good, The Good. That is something you can rationalize your way to, and make a truth claim concerning it. We can rationally know what The Good is. See the classic philosophers for the arguments for and against. ”


Is The Good a principle of absolute morality, or is it something much greater than that? The reason I thought it might be a principle of morality is because you suggested we can rationalize our way there.

I'll try and find something on the web later. Didn't you keep your text from your Philosophy survey? [edited in] see:
http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/republic29.htm
Section 517. This, as far as I know, is the first instance of the idea. But I can't recall for the life of me, where it is later discussed. But even encylopedias cover it:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/pl/Plato.html



“ Rando, this must be your interpretation of what I said, cause I'm quite sure that I specifically pointed out that my meditation method is primarily to still the mind? Get thoughts under control? Being aware of one's surroundings is part of the method to diminish self in order to still the mind. That is, I can analyze my breath or something else without being endlessly distracted by the usual jumble of random thoughts that occupy people's minds. At that point I can choose to meld (so to speak) or consider an idea dispassionately. Believe me, there is a distinction. ”




Might be my fault. What I remember most distinctly was your exercise with the orange and trying to minimize yourself while making the orange greater. Sorry, I realize I wasn’t listening as well as I should have been. I’ve had these preconceived notions of what meditation is, and they were blocking me from understanding what it is to you. It’s very different for you than what I thought meditation was. I understand now! Forgive me?

How about you forgive me? The orange thing was just a bad idea. (nodding)


“ For my quiet time, I like to just get comfortable, tell God all my worries and concerns, and try to listen to him. Sometimes its easier than others. . If you apply method... ”


Now I think I understand you a bit more fully. I can increase the depth and usefulness of my prayer if I learn how to pray. Geez I’m sorry I didn’t understand you better before.

I'm not trying to subvert your beliefs, LOL. I think your method or choice of how to go about all this is just as valid as mine. Most of yours doesn't work for me, but I'm aware of certain overlaps that you may find useful - or not. Extemporaneous prayer may be a way to separate one from the Catholics one fears. But it also separates you from the benefits of ritual and rubric. So, who says you can't mix and match?




“ She's the voice in the link I sent you from Oprah. I take it you didn't give it a try. Too bad, Rando. I assure you, it is not going to subvert your belief system. ”


I’ll be totally honest with you- that is one of my fears. Not about Suzan Saltzberg or meditation, but just in general. The parable of the sower is all to near in my heart about how easy it is to “fall away”. I try very hard to combat that fear and keep an open and honest mind toward the truth while remaining on the path Christ set for us. It’s not easy, and I can understand how it is that Armstrong’s “fundamentalists” we were discussing before can clam up and shut their hearts to anything that might cause them to “stumble” in the faith.

That said, I did just listen to all 7 minutes of Suzan Saltzberg’s “Loving Kindness” meditation because I felt bad about not listening to it before after you had suggested it. It certainly was very peaceful! I don’t think it’s the practice for me, however.


I am aware of, and understand your fear. But there was really nothing to be afraid of, was there? You might try the beginner's exercise. Maybe you can adapt it to develop/enhance your own prayer life?



For me, I need to keep focused on God and trying to love others. In addition, happiness, peacefulness, and freedom are very important, and very pleasant to experience in life, but they’re just feelings. I guess my notion of life isn’t to experience happiness, peacefulness and freedom for myself, but to help others to experience them in their own lives. To that end, I ask the Lord to help others to be happy, peacuful, and free and to use me in any way he can to help achieve that goal.

Which is the right thing to do, if you ask me. There is no one size fits all solution to spirituality.


“ John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila both attempted to systematize a method for weeding out some of the more dubious devotions. John believed there were inherent dangers in the Interior Life (which is in itself a sort of superstition to me). It works, but it is a very difficult method. So, Ignatius (of Jesuit fame) developed a method (Spiritual Exercises) that requires less effort and can be accomplished during a retreat lasting maybe a few weeks. ”


You don’t see any possible dangers about living the Interior Life that might arise? I think that it’s got wonderful benefits if done the right way, but really can be harmful if you approach it from a selfish angle, for example. I’ve seen Ignatius of Loyola’s approach for reading the Bible, and I agree it’s really admirable and quite useful.

Um.... I don't think that contemplation or meditation can leave you open to the influences of demons, no. :)


“ I think the whole rebuking concept is an attempt to rationalize judging others. Sorry, but that's what it appears to be from anyone who finds rebuking distasteful. I am not God. I do not get to make God's decisions. Neither am I Jesus, and I don't get to make his decisions either. For me to place myself on that level is exceeding presumptuous, no matter what proof text anyone employs to rationalize the rebuking concept of the modern era. ”

[1.]Do you feel that Jesus was the only one who really had a right to do any rebuking? Why do you think this is? [2.](I’m guessing this may turn into a discussion of who you think Jesus was/is. If you don’t feel like going down that road, just say so, though I am curious.)

1. In it's original meaning of deliberate humiliation, I think Jesus was the only one who knew without question when to apply it and how.

2. I think Jesus was/is a genuine manifestation of God. Beyond that, I can't do much but engage in essentially useless speculation.


“ I think this comes under the heading of attacking others who have not accepted your authority either implicitly or explicitly. His "rebukes" are nothing more than outright attacks, IMO. And those who reply in kind are engaging in the same sort of behavior. A simple "we do not agree with this sort of thinking or rhetoric" from other Christian groups would sufficiently distance Phelps. ”



You’re right, all he really does is attack. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen him on TV or read anything he’s written, but it’s absolutely sickening, and he loves it that way. About authority: I know that they haven’t consented to be under our authority, but the issue is which authority they hold to. They claim that their authority is the Bible. So do we. Do you think it’s okay to try and show him how he’s wrong by using the authority he claims to defer to, rather than just saying that we disagree with him? The idea, of course, is that if he’s left to continue completely unchecked, he’ll do a tremendous amount of damage with his hatred. Many have tried to just ignore him, and he still doesn’t go away.

The old chestnut about wrestling with pigs in mud (they're too slippery to catch and they like mud) pretty well covers my position. :)


You might not because you don’t identify yourself as a Christian,

I don't think you would consider me Christian. And an atheist who was a fundamentalist before falling away might not recognize me as one. But I'm still a member of the First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ (music version), and Christianity still feels like "home" to me. I am a pluralist though. I'm not at all uncomfortable with the rites and rituals of other religions.


but can you see why Christians who hold the Bible as their authority would want to challenge a “Christian” in the Klan? As I said before, it’s dragging the name of Christ through the mud.


Yeah, I can. But it makes me worry that the fear you have of other's beliefs and rhetoric may eventually pry you away from your faith.



Good point. I often fall into the trap, especially here on this particular forum, of being suckered into trying to explain really non-rational concepts like the atonement or the trinity or even the possibility of miracles in rational terms to skeptics who won’t accept anything BUT rationality. It’s a lost cause!

Still, if I didn’t think that the evidence did suggest in all likelihood Jesus’s physically rising from the dead, I wouldn’t be a Christian. The spiritual truths of the Bible became evident to me AFTER I was convinced of the rational truths. Not everybody works that way, but that’s how it happened for me.


Well, all I can say or do is to point you towards Jesus' advice not to sweat the small stuff. You have the big issues solved. It would be a terrible shame to allow yourself to be mired down now.

[FormerFundy]

I know this is an extremely long thread so if these issues have already been hashed and rehashed again, please forgive me.


02-16-2003 @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=17111#post17111)
Jaltus:

Why do I believe in Christianity?

There are a few reasons, but the biggest ones stem from what I have seen.

First, I have seen lives changed by the power of God, including my own. Atheism does not call for change, it calls for sameness.


This argument could be put forth by a number of different religious groups (e.g., Mormons, JW's, SDA's, Church of Christ, Unitarian Penteostals, RCC, not to mention a plethora of non-Christian groups) and even quasi-religious groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. It is not unique to evangelical Christianity.



Second, evolution cannot answer the ultimate question, where did matter come from?

Even if it does not, it does not by default mean that evangelical Christianity is true. Perhaps Deism is true or perhaps matter is eternal or perhaps Van Doniken's UFO theory is correct.



Third, Christianity gives a reason to be moral.


Before I answer this, let me say that probably more death and destruction have been brought to bear upon the world by Christians than any other religion.

Having said that though, why does Christianity have a corner on morality? Hammurabi seemed to have a pretty good grasp on it. Most human societies have had law codes that were very similar at least in outlawing murder, rape, theft, etc.



Fourth, there has never been a counterproof to the resurrection of Christ. Even contemporaries or critics of Christianity have never disputed this, other than to say "it is impossible," which is a preconceived notion on their part.


There does not need to be a counterproof; there needs to be a proof. It is the Christians obligation to prove what he asserts. There is no "proof" of the resurrection. There are arguments that some Christians find convincing.



Fifth, frankly, I know Christ is in me. What better reason for me to believe than because I know Him, and He knows me!
[/quote]

Its a good reason for you, I guess but dont expect it to convince anyone else. When my Mormon friends tell me they know they are right because they have a "burning in the bosom"; I remain unconvinced.


02-16-2003 @ 10:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=17114#post17114)
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Jaltus, you bring up a good point that my husband brings up frequently. The empty tomb is undisputed even by those livng at the time who had the most motivation to nip this upsurgent sect in the bud. If the body was available, all the Jewish leaders of that time would have to have done was drag the body through the streets of Jersualem in a public display. They could not do that, and they had every reason and motivation to want to.

P-DD,

I have to take issue with you and your hubby here. Peter's pentecostal sermon was approximately 50 days after the crucifixion. The body of Jesus would have been unrecognizable outside of dental xrays or dna analysis.

[Jim E.]

Today @ 11:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289014#post289014)
FormerFundy:
P-DD,

I have to take issue with you and your hubby here. Peter's pentecostal sermon was approximately 50 days after the crucifixion. The body of Jesus would have been unrecognizable outside of dental xrays or dna analysis.

Just an add-on point (not disputing what you say). Christianity: Myth or reality? is the question that must be asked. As an atheist, I am offended by Christians' attempts to control just about everything. I am also well aware of just how emotional Christians can be when their faith is threatened.

The answer is that Christianity's miracle claims were just made up, well after Jesus died. I don't mind Christians believing what they believe, but I detest their controlling attitudes (just a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular).

Jim

[Xavier]

Jim Eisele:

Just an add-on point (not disputing what you say). Christianity: Myth or reality? is the question that must be asked. As an atheist, I am offended by Christians' attempts to control just about everything. I am also well aware of just how emotional Christians can be when their faith is threatened.

I'm offended by Atheist attempts to rid off forms of Religious Expression...

I'm also well aware of just how emotional Atheists can be when their faith is threatened...

Can we can the "Christian" generalities that are truly valid for EVERYONE?


The answer is that Christianity's miracle claims were just made up, well after Jesus died.

Argument by Assertion... I believe that Lincoln and his presidentcy were just made up slightly after his death.


I don't mind Christians believing what they believe, but I detest their controlling attitudes (just a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular).

Oh look, A generality that represents BOTH sides of the argument.


Jim

Xavier

[hospitaller]

Jim wrote:
"Too many false religions have existed for me to believe (or spend time researching) Islam."

But having more or less (as far as you are concerned) proved Christianity to be false, why not move on to the next biggest religion? Are you going to deprive Muslims of your insights just because they are not W.A.S.P.s? I can't understand what is driving you to focus on a hypothesis (which you have disproven to your own satisfaction) to the exclusion of an equally cherished and popular Thesitic belief system. I mean if Christianity's days are numbered because of sites like yours, are you content to see millions enslaved to Islamic religion. Or do they not matter? What makes a Christian more worthwhile enlightening than a Muslim?

[Passant]

But having more or less (as far as you are concerned) proved Christianity to be false, why not move on to the next biggest religion? Are you going to deprive Muslims of your insights just because they are not W.A.S.P.s? I can't understand what is driving you to focus on a hypothesis (which you have disproven to your own satisfaction) to the exclusion of an equally cherished and popular Thesitic belief system. I mean if Christianity's days are numbered because of sites like yours, are you content to see millions enslaved to Islamic religion. Or do they not matter? What makes a Christian more worthwhile enlightening than a Muslim?

This is a good point, Islam has replaced Christianity has the most dangerous religion in the world. Although Christinity still dominates the western world, it is losing ground to Islam, and Islam must be dealt with.

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288930#post288930)
Fideist345:

In that case, I'll leave the expert analysis to you. I really struggle with languages.

Believe me, I'm no linguistic expert! I just brought that up to point out that I understand how concepts can become lost in translation from one language to another.


Basically, for me, the gospels are "where it's at!" I see the epistles as some theologian's best guesses as to what Jesus might have been. I find that kind of speculation about as important as attempting to figure out why Einstein was as intelligent as he was.

I certainly understand where you're coming from, Fideist. That's sort of where I cam from too. I learned to trust the gospels first, then the epistles sort of fell into place for me somehow. What helps me is knowing that all the writers, if they were not eyewitnesses and participants in the events described in the gospels and Acts, were at least really close to those who were.


I've read it, thanks. I think sometimes you have to realize when some angry or disaffected person is baiting you. In my view, the best answer is no answer. But I do understand how difficult it is to just let it slide without any redirection!

I sorta get a bit of vicarious thrill debating things anonymously like this too! I think one reason I keep coming back and trying to answer the critics with answers that they simply will not find acceptable is because many of the questions they ask are ones I've asked in the past. Answering the skeptics helps me to shore up the foundations of my own faith. Plus, if somebody comes along and shows me where I'm wrong, that's cool too because I'm here, like many of us, trying to learn The Truth (I guess that corresponds with your idea of The Good).

[/quote]I'll try and find something on the web later. Didn't you keep your text from your Philosophy survey? [edited in] see:
http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/republic29.htm
Section 517. This, as far as I know, is the first instance of the idea. But I can't recall for the life of me, where it is later discussed. But even encylopedias cover it:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/pl/Plato.html

That's right, I remember a good deal of Plato now, though I had no idea that's who you were referring to. Thanks for the links!
[/quote]


I'm not trying to subvert your beliefs, LOL. I think your method or choice of how to go about all this is just as valid as mine. Most of yours doesn't work for me, but I'm aware of certain overlaps that you may find useful - or not. Extemporaneous prayer may be a way to separate one from the Catholics one fears. But it also separates you from the benefits of ritual and rubric. So, who says you can't mix and match?

Hehe. I know you're not. But it really does feel sometimes like life is a balancing act, like this: :ponder:

Where do you get the idea that I fear Catholics? I consider myself a pretty ecumenical Christian, and though Catholics do and believe a lot of wierd things I don't understand, they deny none of the essentials of the faith, and many of them have a spirituality and ethic that's quite admirable. For those reasons, I'm proud to call them brothers and sisters in Christ, even though some of my Protestant brethren may think otherwise.


I am aware of, and understand your fear. But there was really nothing to be afraid of, was there? You might try the beginner's exercise. Maybe you can adapt it to develop/enhance your own prayer life?

I think some of the techniques you describe can be useful. I often have a lot of trouble shutting down the constant stream of though it my mind, you know? Especially when I'm trying to talk to God (or sleep!). I just feel like slapping my forehead and saying "Shut up, brain!" like Homer Simpson. Learning to be quiet and still is something I work pretty hard at, but I'm not always successful.


Um.... I don't think that contemplation or meditation can leave you open to the influences of demons, no. :)

Were those the superstitious fears of John and Theresa that you were hinting at? Hehe. The dangers I was thinking of were more like pride and selfishness getting in the way of a contemplative life.


1. In it's original meaning of deliberate humiliation, I think Jesus was the only one who knew without question when to apply it and how.

2. I think Jesus was/is a genuine manifestation of God. Beyond that, I can't do much but engage in essentially useless speculation.

Is that what "rebuke" meant back in Jesus's time? I've been using it in context of "correction" or sin or error, which could be either gentle or harsh as the situation demands. You answered my question about why he would be in an appropriate position to rebuke. I guess some of our differences on the subject are because of our different uses of the word.

I certainly am glad you reached that conclusion about Jesus! It's pretty apparent, even when one does not use GJohn. John just fleshes it about a bit more in my opinion.


The old chestnut about wrestling with pigs in mud (they're too slippery to catch and they like mud) pretty well covers my position. :)

Still, we can't make some evil go away just by ignoring it.


I don't think you would consider me Christian. And an atheist who was a fundamentalist before falling away might not recognize me as one. But I'm still a member of the First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ (music version), and Christianity still feels like "home" to me. I am a pluralist though. I'm not at all uncomfortable with the rites and rituals of other religions.

Arg! I'm so sorry for jumping the gun and leaping to any kind of conclusion! :doh:

Do you think you might feel more at home in a Unitarian Universalist Congregation? They're about as pluralist as they come. Believe me, I'd like to be a pluralist too, but I can't discount John and Paul so easily!


Yeah, I can. But it makes me worry that the fear you have of other's beliefs and rhetoric may eventually pry you away from your faith.


I think I'm pretty secure in my beliefs now. It'd take a BIG change to cause an about face at this point. My example of the KKK was obviously an extreme. My reason for wanting to challenge them is to avoid the potential harm they might cause to others if left unchecked. That's one belief system that I'm not at all worried about subverting my own!


Well, all I can say or do is to point you towards Jesus' advice not to sweat the small stuff. You have the big issues solved. It would be a terrible shame to allow yourself to be mired down now.

I'm not a Calvinist, so I don't believe in the "perserverance of the saints" or anything. Without a firm foundation in the faith, I think that Christians can and do fall away, though I think that I'm past the point I need to be concerned.

One more question I'd like to ask you:

Do you think Jesus was referring to a "hell" of some kind as a destination for souls after death, or do you think his mentions of Gehenna and places of "weaping and gnashing of teeth" are references to states of misery in this life? Or something else entirely?

[Fideist345]

Today @ 09:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290791#post290791)
Amazing Rando:



[quote]Answering the skeptics helps me to shore up the foundations of my own faith. Plus, if somebody comes along and shows me where I'm wrong, that's cool too because I'm here, like many of us, trying to learn The Truth (I guess that corresponds with your idea of The Good).

My idea of the good is that of an essence or source… and I just can’t articulate the rest.


That's right, I remember a good deal of Plato now, though I had no idea that's who you were referring to. Thanks for the links!


Sure!


Where do you get the idea that I fear Catholics?


That is why I used the convention: one. I was referring to American Protestants and their inordinate fear of “papists”. So, maybe not you, but your tradition demonstrates a good bit of fear.



“ Um.... I don't think that contemplation or meditation can leave you open to the influences of demons, no. :) ”

Were those the superstitious fears of John and Theresa that you were hinting at? Hehe. The dangers I was thinking of were more like pride and selfishness getting in the way of a contemplative life.

Among other weird and wonderful things. :) Even today, some Catholic contemplatives give an almost dungeons and dragons cast to following Merton’s lead. Maybe there’s some need to seem pious about it or something.


Is that what "rebuke" meant back in Jesus's time? I've been using it in context of "correction" or sin or error, which could be either gentle or harsh as the situation demands. You answered my question about why he would be in an appropriate position to rebuke. I guess some of our differences on the subject are because of our different uses of the word.

Even today, it means to tell somebody off. What would happen if somebody in your church started telling people off whom he didn’t agree with? I warrant he’d get more than just a sideways glance and a humph!


I certainly am glad you reached that conclusion about Jesus! It's pretty apparent, even when one does not use GJohn. John just fleshes it about a bit more in my opinion.

Don’t read too much into “manifestation”, I mean it in the act of showing or demonstrating something. Not necessarily in the sense of a materialization. More in the vein of a visible form of expression.


“ The old chestnut about wrestling with pigs in mud (they're too slippery to catch and they like mud) pretty well covers my position. :) ”

Still, we can't make some evil go away just by ignoring it.

Skeptics aren’t evil Rando. They’re scared of you. You’re scared of them. And it all makes for a fine mess. And I’ll bet you can’t guess who gives you the key to reduce the tension?


“ I don't think you would consider me Christian. And an atheist who was a fundamentalist before falling away might not recognize me as one. But I'm still a member of the First Christian Church, Disciples of Christ (music version), and Christianity still feels like "home" to me. I am a pluralist though. I'm not at all uncomfortable with the rites and rituals of other religions. ”



Arg! I'm so sorry for jumping the gun and leaping to any kind of conclusion!

Don’t worry about it! I’m sure I sound like… what was it that one guy called me? Oh yeah! A reprobate. :)


Do you think you might feel more at home in a Unitarian Universalist Congregation? They're about as pluralist as they come.

You mean and sit around listening to chamber orchestras? :) No matter which window you look out of, you’re still regarding the same sky.


Believe me, I'd like to be a pluralist too, but I can't discount John and Paul so easily!

At their core, all religions since the Axial age, have been pretty much about compassion and justice. Almost every religion has its version of the Golden Rule at its core too.



I'm not a Calvinist, so I don't believe in the "perserverance of the saints" or anything. Without a firm foundation in the faith, I think that Christians can and do fall away, though I think that I'm past the point I need to be concerned.

Calvinists? Oh! You mean the TULIP thing? So, does that mean you’re Armenian? Perseverance of the saints? How does a protestant become canonized, Rando? Does the Pope know about this? Any of the Patriarchs? :)


One more question I'd like to ask you:

Do you think Jesus was referring to a "hell" of some kind as a destination for souls after death,

I don’t speculate too much on an afterlife despite it being one of the main pieces of the Fideist argument. Maybe I’m just contrary, I don’t know. But I think when you want to know if the words were those of Jesus or just an impression the evangelist wanted to make, you have to use theme and context. Was Jesus vengeful? When some anonymous disciple wanted to hack off a guy’s ear, what happened?



or do you think his mentions of Gehenna and places of "weaping and gnashing of teeth" are references to states of misery in this life?

I think the gnashing of teeth imagery comes from Psalm 35. I think this is an attempt to show Jesus as an embattled David figure.


Or something else entirely?

What do you think?

[Jim E.]

A quick, off the top of my head reply to posts responding to me:


Yesterday @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289734#post289734)
Xavier:
I'm offended by Atheist attempts to rid off forms of Religious Expression...

Well, discussion can get heated here. I like to congratulate this site as much as I can when I get the chance. To me, the best kinds of Christians are the ones who allow dissent and discussion. This site allows that in an open forum, which I think is excellent.

I like it when religious people express themselves. I think that is good for discussion. I don't like the controls that religion attempts to place on people. Christianity aims to control your money, your sex life, your friends, and other things. We could talk for quite a while on this, but I want to at least post something for now.

Islam just seems to be a religion that was forced on people (much as Christianity has been). I'm at the point where religions make far more sense when understood as cultural phenomena rather than divine revelation. Islam didn't even exist before the seventh century!

Jim

[Xavier]

Jim Eisele:


Xavier

I'm offended by Atheist attempts to rid off forms of Religious Expression...

Well, discussion can get heated here.

I only meant it as a counterpoint to your statement. It wasn't intended to be "heated" just satirical (sp?).


I like to congratulate this site as much as I can when I get the chance. To me, the best kinds of Christians are the ones who allow dissent and discussion. This site allows that in an open forum, which I think is excellent.

TWeb is a great place... Well, Looky there, we agreed on something... :teeth:


I like it when religious people express themselves. I think that is good for discussion.

Same for skeptics... We all learn something.


I don't like the controls that religion attempts to place on people. Christianity aims to control your money, your sex life, your friends, and other things. We could talk for quite a while on this, but I want to at least post something for now.

Those pesky morals...:teeth:

I've got a large list of people who think it makes them better people. In fact, I'm sure there are some here to vouch for that.


Islam just seems to be a religion that was forced on people (much as Christianity has been).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...


I'm at the point where religions make far more sense when understood as cultural phenomena rather than divine revelation.

Unless one (any of them) turns out to be true...


Islam didn't even exist before the seventh century!

Which matters because???


Jim

Yours,
Xavier

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 10:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290984#post290984)
Fideist345:

My idea of the good is that of an essence or source… and I just can’t articulate the rest.

Understandable. I could articulate it, but it certainly wouldn't do it justice, you know?


That is why I used the convention: one. I was referring to American Protestants and their inordinate fear of “papists”. So, maybe not you, but your tradition demonstrates a good bit of fear.

Gotcha. I'd say we've all got a bit of fear inside us. Some more than others, but we've all got those "unknowns" in life that just give us the shivers.


Among other weird and wonderful things. :) Even today, some Catholic contemplatives give an almost dungeons and dragons cast to following Merton’s lead. Maybe there’s some need to seem pious about it or something.

My take on it is that yes, there is a spiritual warfare going on all about us. I believe this because of all of the demonic activity and exorcisms reported in the gospels. I just take it as a given. However I know that since it's on an entirely different plane of reality from us that we cannot perceive, worrying about it does no good. It may or may not be the actual cause of some misfortunes in life- there's no way to know that, so just get on with the business of living I say.



Even today, it means to tell somebody off. What would happen if somebody in your church started telling people off whom he didn’t agree with? I warrant he’d get more than just a sideways glance and a humph!

Hold on a second. [/QUOTE]
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke) says that rebuke means "To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish". It may or may not have had a different connotation back in the time of Christ, but that's the sense I've been using it in, not as the verbal equivalent of flipping somebody the bird! That's what I see Jesus doing in the gospels- reproving, criticizing, and admonishing. But all in a righteous cause. I think a good test for it is in what spirit you're doing it in- if out of love and for a righteous cause, then cool. But if you're doing it in a mean-spirited way or out of pride that you're right, then it should be avoided. It seems to me that to Jesus, most of morality lay in what spirit you were doing what you did, not in your actual actions. If you were doing something out of love for God or for others, it was good, but if you were doing it for personal gain or to show off, it was bad.


Don’t read too much into “manifestation”, I mean it in the act of showing or demonstrating something. Not necessarily in the sense of a materialization. More in the vein of a visible form of expression.

So not an Incarnation?


Skeptics aren’t evil Rando. They’re scared of you. You’re scared of them. And it all makes for a fine mess. And I’ll bet you can’t guess who gives you the key to reduce the tension?

I think that this time it was your turn to misunderstand me! In my original quote, I was still talking about people like Phelps or the Klan. If they're only one thing I learned from Jesus, it's that people aren't evil, but their actions certainly can be. I'm not out on these boards here trying to prove that I'm right. I'm trying to introduce people to Jesus, and show them that he's right!


Don’t worry about it! I’m sure I sound like… what was it that one guy called me? Oh yeah! A reprobate. :)

Wow, some of those words ripped from King James's English are pretty cool huh? Lemme see here- "reprobate" on Dictionary.com says: 1). Morally unprincipled; shameless. and 2). Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.

You're certainly not number 1, and it's not anybody's place to judge you for number 2 except God alone! Humans have no business using a word like "reprobate" in reference to anyone else.


You mean and sit around listening to chamber orchestras?

Unitarians are known for their orchestras!



:) No matter which window you look out of, you’re still regarding the same sky. [quote]

Yeah, yeah. All streams lead to the same ocean. Had Jesus said anything like this, I'd be a bit more inclined to believe it! :yes:
It's just that so much of what he did say is very against this notion.

[quote] At their core, all religions since the Axial age, have been pretty much about compassion and justice. Almost every religion has its version of the Golden Rule at its core too.

I've thought a lot about this issue for myself. Many religions do hold a "similar" morality at their core. To me, this suggests something other than pluralism. The concept of progressive revelation is key to my understanding of it. It's the idea that deep down, everyone knows God's what God asks of us as far as loving one another. Sorta goes along with the idea of the brain being "hard-wired" to seek God, like we were discussing before. That and Paul's belief that the Law of God is "written on our hearts" in a way (Romans 2:17-3:20). One of the reasons I trust Paul as well as the gospels is because Paul was writing within 15-20 years of tjesus's death, at least 10 years before Mark was composed.


Calvinists? Oh! You mean the TULIP thing? So, does that mean you’re Armenian? Perseverance of the saints? How does a protestant become canonized, Rando? Does the Pope know about this? Any of the Patriarchs? :)

I don't really know enough about the alternative positions to Calvinism to choose one. All I can say is that I disagree with at least 3 and maybe 4 of the TULIP ideas. "Saints" in protestant terminology just means any Christian believer. Calvin's idea was that once you are saved, you're always saved (that's the perseverance). It's an idea I take issue with on Scriptural grounds, but I have a feeling you wouldn't be very interested in that type of speculation, eh? :bv:


I don’t speculate too much on an afterlife despite it being one of the main pieces of the Fideist argument. Maybe I’m just contrary, I don’t know. But I think when you want to know if the words were those of Jesus or just an impression the evangelist wanted to make, you have to use theme and context. Was Jesus vengeful? When some anonymous disciple wanted to hack off a guy’s ear, what happened?

You're right- Kierkegaard, Barth, and other Christian fideists had some very clear ideas about the afterlife. I agree with you that it is, as you say, "speculation", but again, I feel the Bible does give us some reliable clues!

Jesus wasn't vengeful, but he did point to God in all things, correct? The picture he paints for us of God is a just God as well as a loving, merciful God. I don't feel this is a contradiction at all.

The Parable of the Tenants from Mark 12: 1-11 paints a picture of a saddened and reluctant Landlord, whose attempts to gather the harvest from the wicked tenants is foiled by their cruelty time and time again, even after the Landlord's only Son is killed. The Landlord is left with no option but to destroy the wicked tenants and reclaim his vineyard by force. To me, this seems to be how Jesus envisioned his Father's relationship to the world. The servents he sent were the OT prophets, all ultimately rejected by the nation of Israel.

What's your take on this parable and it's parallels?


I think the gnashing of teeth imagery comes from Psalm 35. I think this is an attempt to show Jesus as an embattled David figure.

What do you think?


Yep! He certainly did allude to the OT a lot, which is quite consistent with his assertion that he came to "fulfill" the Law of Moses, wouldn't you say? In addition making Jesus look like David, the same could be argued about the character of David- with a few notable, exceptional sins, David could be seen as perhaps a "proto-Christ"- at least in character and humilty. Does the Bible say somewhere that David was "a man after God's own heart", or is that just something I'm remembering from one of my pastor's old sermons?

I did a quick word search for "gnashing of teeth". In the NASB, it occurs 7 times- six in Matthew, one in Luke. Every one is accompanied by the word "furnace", "darkness", or "thrown out". It's just apparent to me that Jesus spoke of some sort of "hell" many times- more than anybody else in the Bible in fact. Sometimes he masked it with metaphor, sometimes he did not, but he was never specific about it other than to say it was apart from God, and it was a reeeeeallly bad place to be. :shocked:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 01:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291806#post291806)
Xavier:

Those pesky morals...:teeth:

I've got a large list of people who think it makes them better people. In fact, I'm sure there are some here to vouch for that.


:hi:

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 09:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291920#post291920)
Amazing Rando:




“My idea of the good is that of an essence or source… and I just can’t articulate the rest.”

Understandable. I could articulate it, but it certainly wouldn't do it justice, you know?

It must be nice to know stuff. :)


“ That is why I used the convention: one. I was referring to American Protestants and their inordinate fear of “papists”. So, maybe not you, but your tradition demonstrates a good bit of fear. ”



Gotcha. I'd say we've all got a bit of fear inside us. Some more than others, but we've all got those "unknowns" in life that just give us the shivers.

Yep. Conservative Christians fear that the secular rationalists will repress their religion and eventually smash it, if not countered. OTOH, the secular rationalists fear that conservative Christians will repress their right to live without religious constraint. Both sides are attempting to preempt what they fancy the other is doing. And not without some reason. The recent actions of the ACLU targeting such things as the POA and the recent legislation concerning late term abortion only serve to exacerbate an already tense situation. But at it’s heart, the problem is the attempt by each to repress the other.


“ Among other weird and wonderful things. :) Even today, some Catholic contemplatives give an almost dungeons and dragons cast to following Merton’s lead. Maybe there’s some need to seem pious about it or something. ”



My take on it is that yes, there is a spiritual warfare going on all about us. I believe this because of all of the demonic activity and exorcisms reported in the gospels. I just take it as a given. However I know that since it's on an entirely different plane of reality from us that we cannot perceive, worrying about it does no good. It may or may not be the actual cause of some misfortunes in life- there's no way to know that, so just get on with the business of living I say.

My wife says that people believe exactly what they want to believe. I don’t argue with my wife. :)



“ Even today, it means to tell somebody off. What would happen if somebody in your church started telling people off whom he didn’t agree with? I warrant he’d get more than just a sideways glance and a humph! ”



Hold on a second.
Dictionary.com says that rebuke means "To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish". It may or may not have had a different connotation back in the time of Christ, but that's the sense I've been using it in, not as the verbal equivalent of flipping somebody the bird! That's what I see Jesus doing in the gospels- reproving, criticizing, and admonishing. But all in a righteous cause. I think a good test for it is in what spirit you're doing it in- if out of love and for a righteous cause, then cool. But if you're doing it in a mean-spirited way or out of pride that you're right, then it should be avoided. It seems to me that to Jesus, most of morality lay in what spirit you were doing what you did, not in your actual actions. If you were doing something out of love for God or for others, it was good, but if you were doing it for personal gain or to show off, it was bad.


From Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:

1 a : to criticize sharply : REPRIMAND

2reprimand transitive verb
(1681)
: to reprove sharply or censure formally usually from a position of authority [my emphasis]

From Encarta World English Dictionary:
re·buke [phonetics did not translate] transitive verb (past re·buked, past participle re·buked, present participle re·buk·ing, 3rd person present singular re·bukes)
tell somebody off[their emphasis]: to criticize or reprimand somebody, usually sharply



“ Don’t read too much into “manifestation”, I mean it in the act of showing or demonstrating something. Not necessarily in the sense of a materialization. More in the vein of a visible form of expression. ”



So not an Incarnation?


I have no way to articulate answers to questions like this. I wish I did!



“ Skeptics aren’t evil Rando. They’re scared of you. You’re scared of them. And it all makes for a fine mess. And I’ll bet you can’t guess who gives you the key to reduce the tension? ”



I think that this time it was your turn to misunderstand me! In my original quote, I was still talking about people like Phelps or the Klan. If they're only one thing I learned from Jesus, it's that people aren't evil, but their actions certainly can be. I'm not out on these boards here trying to prove that I'm right. I'm trying to introduce people to Jesus, and show them that he's right!

Sorry for he misunderstanding. I guess I missed the connection.



“ Don’t worry about it! I’m sure I sound like… what was it that one guy called me? Oh yeah! A reprobate. :) ”



Wow, some of those words ripped from King James's English are pretty cool huh? Lemme see here- "reprobate" on Dictionary.com says: 1). Morally unprincipled; shameless. and 2). Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.

You're certainly not number 1, and it's not anybody's place to judge you for number 2 except God alone! Humans have no business using a word like "reprobate" in reference to anyone else.


He was “rebuking” me "in the name of Jesus!”



“ :) No matter which window you look out of, you’re still regarding the same sky. [quote] Yeah, yeah. All streams lead to the same ocean. Had Jesus said anything like this, I'd be a bit more inclined to believe it! It's just that so much of what he did say is very against this notion. [quote] At their core, all religions since the Axial age, have been pretty much about compassion and justice. Almost every religion has its version of the Golden Rule at its core too. ”


He did say something like this: He who has ears to hear, translates into today’s idiom as: use your head.



I've thought a lot about this issue for myself. Many religions do hold a "similar" morality at their core. To me, this suggests something other than pluralism. The concept of progressive revelation is key to my understanding of it. It's the idea that deep down, everyone knows God's what God asks of us as far as loving one another. Sorta goes along with the idea of the brain being "hard-wired" to seek God, like we were discussing before. That and Paul's belief that the Law of God is "written on our hearts" in a way (Romans 2:17-3:20). One of the reasons I trust Paul as well as the gospels is because Paul was writing within 15-20 years of tjesus's death, at least 10 years before Mark was composed.


I’m not going to reduce my notes to some sort of blather by trying to paraphrase them here. If you like, I’ll send some pertinent notes your way via PM. Same for anyone else interested. Don’t be too eager, even the little bit I’ll send is vast.

But I do have a URL that lists some of the varying versions of the golden rule:

“Bahá'í Faith
And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
_Epistle to the Son of the Wolf_, 30

Hindu Faith
This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.
The Mahabharata

Jewish Faith
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary…

The rest can be viewed at the URL:

http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html



“ Calvinists? Oh! You mean the TULIP thing? So, does that mean you’re Armenian? Perseverance of the saints? How does a protestant become canonized, Rando? Does the Pope know about this? Any of the Patriarchs? :) ”


I don't really know enough about the alternative positions to Calvinism to choose one. All I can say is that I disagree with at least 3 and maybe 4 of the TULIP ideas. "Saints" in protestant terminology just means any Christian believer. Calvin's idea was that once you are saved, you're always saved (that's the perseverance). It's an idea I take issue with on Scriptural grounds, but I have a feeling you wouldn't be very interested in that type of speculation, eh?

So much for my attempt at humor. :) <----- that is a smile, BTW.


“ I don’t speculate too much on an afterlife despite it being one of the main pieces of the Fideist argument. Maybe I’m just contrary, I don’t know. But I think when you want to know if the words were those of Jesus or just an impression the evangelist wanted to make, you have to use theme and context. Was Jesus vengeful? When some anonymous disciple wanted to hack off a guy’s ear, what happened? ”



You're right- Kierkegaard, Barth, and other Christian fideists had some very clear ideas about the afterlife. I agree with you that it is, as you say, "speculation", but again, I feel the Bible does give us some reliable clues!


I don’t place my faith in the Bible itself. I see it as a guide and a source of wisdom.


Jesus wasn't vengeful, but he did point to God in all things, correct? The picture he paints for us of God is a just God as well as a loving, merciful God. I don't feel this is a contradiction at all.

The Parable of the Tenants from Mark 12: 1-11 paints a picture of a saddened and reluctant Landlord, whose attempts to gather the harvest from the wicked tenants is foiled by their cruelty time and time again, even after the Landlord's only Son is killed. The Landlord is left with no option but to destroy the wicked tenants and reclaim his vineyard by force. To me, this seems to be how Jesus envisioned his Father's relationship to the world. The servents he sent were the OT prophets, all ultimately rejected by the nation of Israel.

What's your take on this parable and it's parallels?

I don’t think you really want to know.


“ I think the gnashing of teeth imagery comes from Psalm 35. I think this is an attempt to show Jesus as an embattled David figure. What do you think? ”



Yep! He certainly did allude to the OT a lot, which is quite consistent with his assertion that he came to "fulfill" the Law of Moses, wouldn't you say? In addition making Jesus look like David, the same could be argued about the character of David- with a few notable, exceptional sins, David could be seen as perhaps a "proto-Christ"- at least in character and humilty. Does the Bible say somewhere that David was "a man after God's own heart", or is that just something I'm remembering from one of my pastor's old sermons?

I did a quick word search for "gnashing of teeth". In the NASB, it occurs 7 times- six in Matthew, one in Luke. Every one is accompanied by the word "furnace", "darkness", or "thrown out". It's just apparent to me that Jesus spoke of some sort of "hell" many times- more than anybody else in the Bible in fact. Sometimes he masked it with metaphor, sometimes he did not, but he was never specific about it other than to say it was apart from God, and it was a reeeeeallly bad place to be.

So, why do you think it’s not in Mark? If I only had Mark, and didn’t know about this eschatological preaching in Mt. and Lk., what difference do you think it would it make?

[Jim E.]

Yesterday @ 08:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291806#post291806)
Xavier:
Those pesky morals...:teeth:

I've got a large list of people who think it makes them better people. In fact, I'm sure there are some here to vouch for that.


If following the morals of Christianity makes you happier, well that's good for you (which may not be at all good for the non-Christians in your life, however).

You have a huge problem, though. What about all of the people who are happier (perhaps much, much happier) to be free of Christian morals?

Jim

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 01:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=293566#post293566)
Fideist345:

It must be nice to know stuff. :)

Arg! You know what I mean! I think. :smile:


Yep. Conservative Christians fear that the secular rationalists will repress their religion and eventually smash it, if not countered. OTOH, the secular rationalists fear that conservative Christians will repress their right to live without religious constraint. Both sides are attempting to preempt what they fancy the other is doing. And not without some reason. The recent actions of the ACLU targeting such things as the POA and the recent legislation concerning late term abortion only serve to exacerbate an already tense situation. But at it’s heart, the problem is the attempt by each to repress the other.

Interesting analysis, and not too far off the mark! Unfortunately in these culture wars, there isn't much middle ground. I feel completely torn at the moment, because my values and politics don't fall neatly into any political party. I've got pretty liberal economic values, almost bordering on socialism at times, and fairly conservative moral and social values. According to the Libertarian Party's "World's Smallest Political Quiz", that makes me a borderline fascist! yeesh. Not a pleasant distinction, nor a popular one.

I guess with many of the issues currently up for debate in the public eye, many people of both sides just like to put on a pretext of "tolerance"for the sake of positive press, while still being hypocritical in their intolerance of others. Of course, orthodox Christianity is or ought to be, very aware of its "intolerance" of some things (sin for example).


My wife says that people believe exactly what they want to believe. I don’t argue with my wife. :)

Good strategy! But do you think that Christians "want" to believe that all mankind (including themselves) is selfish, greedy, and stupid? :ahem:


From Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:

1 a : to criticize sharply : REPRIMAND

2reprimand transitive verb
(1681)
: to reprove sharply or censure formally usually from a position of authority [my emphasis]

From Encarta World English Dictionary:
re·buke [phonetics did not translate] transitive verb (past re·buked, past participle re·buked, present participle re·buk·ing, 3rd person present singular re·bukes)
tell somebody off[their emphasis]: to criticize or reprimand somebody, usually sharply

Oh boy, war of the dueling dictionaries! I feel kinda foolish for using "Dictionary.com" while you use real dictionaries! :doh: Guess I was just a bit lazy to go and grab my real one.

Gotcha. "To tell somebody off" "from a position of authority". I can agree to that defnition of the word. At least we each now understand where the other was coming from! Using your definitions, I can see how you would think Jesus didn't actually "rebuke" anybody. If you use my definition, can you see why I would think he did?


So not an Incarnation?[i]

I have no way to articulate answers to questions like this. I wish I did!

I'm getting to know you well enough now to know this is not a "weasel" answer!


Sorry for he misunderstanding. I guess I missed the connection.

Forgiven. How many times have I misread you already? Heh. :metro:


He was “rebuking” me &quot;in the name of Jesus!”

Yikes! I'm sorry you had to experience that! :eek:


He did say something like this: He who has ears to hear, translates into today’s idiom as: use your head.

Well, at this point in time, my head's not telling me the same thing as your head!


I’m not going to reduce my notes to some sort of blather by trying to paraphrase them here. If you like, I’ll send [I]some pertinent notes your way via PM. Same for anyone else interested. Don’t be too eager, even the little bit I’ll send is vast.

I would be interested in a sample! Are they written by you, or did you collect them from the thoughts of others? Or a bit of both?


But I do have a URL that lists some of the varying versions of the golden rule:

“Bahá'í Faith...

The rest can be viewed at the URL:

http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html

Oh yeah, I said before that I agree the Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity (though Jesus was Jewish through and through, and if I'm not mistaken Ba'hai is a very recent phenomenon-1700's or 1800's?), but the question I ask is why? This is where I find Paul's ideas helpful. That's why i brought up Romans.


So much for my attempt at humor. :) &lt;----- that is a smile, BTW.

heh. You call that a smile? This is a smile- :teeth:


I don’t place my faith in the Bible itself. I see it as a guide and a source of wisdom.

Barth saw the Bible as a "witness" to revelation rather than revelation itself- very similar to you, and a view I find attractive too. The reason I've decided to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in most cases is because it's right and true so often in those matters we can examine it on, that I think it deserves a good deal of consideration in those spiritual matters that would otherwise be "speculation". I don't know about inerrant yet, but it's certainly true!


I don’t think you really want to know.

if I'm not mistaken, I think you just perceived something I'm just now catching myself in- an unconscious attempt to draw you into a more heated debate. I know you don't want that, so I'll respect that.

Awful sorry about that. I'll try and catch myself before I do it again. I'll take a step back a minute, though I am curious what you think it means. (If you choose to tell me, I promise I won't get combatitive or even disagreeable! :innocent: I'll just let it drop.).


So, why do you think it’s not in Mark? If I only had Mark, and didn’t know about this eschatological preaching in Mt. and Lk., what difference do you think it would it make?

I don't think it needs to be in all three Synoptics to be considered genuine! It was apparently in Q, if Q really did exist. I don't think your question is that relevant, since the difference between Mark's composition and those of Matthew and Luke was only ten years tops (if you believe the general concensus of critical scholars). I'm not even convinced yet that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is eschatological in all cases.

[Ben Franklin]

02-16-2003 @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=16867#post16867)
Jaltus:

The best reason for being a Christian is that it gives me better odds than being an Atheist.

Say Atheism is wrong, as a Christian it just means no afterlife, as it does for the Atheist.

Say Christianity is correct, then the Atheist goes to hell and Christians have eternal life.

So, being a Christian is a good way to cover your bases. Being an Atheist does no good whatsoever.

Nice job, Jaltus !

[Ben Franklin]

Today @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=295239#post295239)
Jim Eisele:

If following the morals of Christianity makes you happier, well that's good for you (which may not be at all good for the non-Christians in your life, however).

You have a huge problem, though. What about all of the people who are happier (perhaps much, much happier) to be free of Christian morals?

Jim

What about all the millions of people who, before Christianity, were following the morals of their religions ? I guess they really weren't moral, huh ? Oh boy ! It's pretty tough when you have to deal with this kind of intolerance. Morals exist in non-Christian philosophies and cultures, too ! There ! I said it !

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=295300#post295300)
Amazing Rando:



[quote] But at it’s heart, the problem is the attempt by each to repress the other. ”



Interesting analysis, and not too far off the mark! Unfortunately in these culture wars, there isn't much middle ground. I feel completely torn at the moment, because my values and politics don't fall neatly into any political party.

I think that makes you a Democrat. :)


I've got pretty liberal economic values, almost bordering on socialism at times, and fairly conservative moral and social values. According to the Libertarian Party's "World's Smallest Political Quiz", that makes me a borderline fascist! yeesh. Not a pleasant distinction, nor a popular one.

[soap box]I’m exactly the opposite. I do not support Mr. Bush’s tax program though. I find it totally, completely, unequivocally unwise. Especially in light of Greenspan’s very unusual decision to say bluntly (well, almost :)) It ain’t gonna work George!

And as for the U. S. occupation of Iraq… I am a decorated combat veteran and I have seen quite enough demagoguery, xenophobia, jingoism and other assorted stupidity come out of the office of President, thank you. Not to mention some incredibly arrogant and harmful silver spoon types in the cabinet. I’m speaking here of Mr. McNamara – and his counterpart in the current disaster.

And don’t worry about Libertarians’ views about others. Seeing past the end of your nose is a prerequisite for real vision.[/soap box]


“ He was “rebuking” me "in the name of Jesus!” ”



Yikes! I'm sorry you had to experience that!

I think sometimes you have to be on the receiving end of an idea to see just how insidious it can be.


“ He did say something like this: He who has ears to hear, translates into today’s idiom as: use your head. ”



Well, at this point in time, my head's not telling me the same thing as your head!

I predict, from our conversation so far, that you will assume a position of leadership over yourself. At which point, my guess is that you will (give more authority to what Jesus said than what the church says he said that he really didn’t say). :)


I would be interested in a sample! Are they written by you, or did you collect them from the thoughts of others? Or a bit of both?

I’ll send you a sampling of the raw notes. Those are just collected from various sources. Not to offend, but my own writing on the subject is very personal. Not even my wife knows. :)


but the question I ask is why? This is where I find Paul's ideas helpful. That's why i brought up Romans.

Why reciprocity? I would think the answer to that is completely obvious. Or do you mean, why most all religions have it? My practical side says that the idea was transmitted along with just about every religious idea in existence, along the Silk Road.


heh. You call that a smile? This is a smile- :smile:

Too much typing! And my steenking shift key is giving me fits as it is!


Barth saw the Bible as a "witness" to revelation rather than revelation itself- very similar to you, and a view I find attractive too. The reason I've decided to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in most cases is because it's right and true so often in those matters we can examine it on, that I think it deserves a good deal of consideration in those spiritual matters that would otherwise be "speculation". I don't know about inerrant yet, but it's certainly true!

On the level of black Elk’s “true”, I agree completely. (nodding)


“ I don’t think you really want to know. ”



if I'm not mistaken, I think you just perceived something I'm just now catching myself in- an unconscious attempt to draw you into a more heated debate. I know you don't want that, so I'll respect that.

It isn’t so much that, as my view of what the gospels are, is very radical. I am prepared to publicly say what they are not, but I don’t think anyone on these boards is ready to hear what I think they are. It’s my considered opinion that to voice my opinion on this would be a total disservice to anyone who has not come to a conclusion by dint of reading a wide range of scholarship on the subject, and then just letting it percolate for a few years.


Awful sorry about that. I'll try and catch myself before I do it again. I'll take a step back a minute, though I am curious what you think it [parable of the vineyard or husbandman] means. (If you choose to tell me, I promise I won't get combatitive or even disagreeable! I'll just let it drop.).

No need to be sorry Rando. This appears to be an important issue to you, so I’ll give you an answer. Probably more of one than you wanted:

Scholarship (Stephen J. Patterson citing Scott, Carlston and Crossan, for instance) knows (despite the fact that we can’t know these things) that the parable as given in Mark is not original to Jesus. There are very obvious additions that transform the parable that Jesus told into an allegory having to do with the death of Jesus. That is not to say, that the “son” does not still die; but in Jesus’ version there is no real indication that the “son” in question is himself.

So, what do I think it means? It is a demonstration of what is not of the Kingdom of God. Everyone loses in these sorts of stand-offs. Jesus would not have to have said (and didn’t) that the authorities then came and annihilated the “tenants”, that was a foregone conclusion in those days and times. In the Kingdom, neither side would have stubbornly forced the outcome. The total loss would be a shocking and unexpected turn of events in the story, to all who read it. It may have subverted the idea that all one had to do to get the land from the Romans was to kill them, thus fulfilling the purpose of parable.



I don't think it [gnashing, etc] needs to be in all three Synoptics to be considered genuine! It was apparently in Q, if Q really did exist.

Whether or not it is genuine, is not an issue in my view. And the question still stands. What if I only had Mark as a reference? That is a reasonable question in light of the fact that it most likely happened. It is anachronistic to think otherwise. What if a person didn’t have all the warnings and what-have-you from the other gospels? I don’t expect you to answer, but the question remains.


I don't think your question is that relevant, since the difference between Mark's composition and those of Matthew and Luke was only ten years tops (if you believe the general concensus of critical scholars). I'm not even convinced yet that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is eschatological in all cases.


Only ten years, but during those ten years, almost all Jews in Jerusalem had been killed. Nobody knows what happened to the Jerusalem community headed by Peter. Some speculation is that some escaped and formed a community called Ebionites. Others say Nazarenes. During those ten years, the school at Jabneh (Jamnia) was established and Rabbinical Judaism began. Rabbinical Judaism was, unlike current Judaism, an evangelizing entity. During those ten years, Christians (presumably those who were not trapped in Jerusalem) and Rabbinical Jews were competing for converts. The Christians based their beliefs primarily on Mark’s genius and Q, while the Rabbinical Jews based theirs on Mishna and the school of Hillel. Both groups were still under the foot of Roman hegemony, but the Christians were in much closer contact with Roman power overall. Both groups wrote post 70 documents that gave the impression that the Temple still stood as of the writing. That tells me, that other things were retrojected as well. I think a lot of language in both Matthew and Luke is the direct result of these factors. We get more apologetic rhetoric and the tone becomes much more anti-Jewish. At the same time, it becomes more eschatological in tone. In much the same way as Jewish writing did during the time of the Maccabees, etc.


I'm not even convinced yet that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is eschatological in all cases.

Maybe not. But weeping usually implies lament. And the gnashing teeth imagery is very war-like in it’s apparent allusion to David being surrounded by his enemies, if you ask me.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 03:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297391#post297391)
Fideist345:



I think that makes you a Democrat. :)

You know, I probably would cast my hat in with the Democrats if not for their platform on abortion. That's a very big issue for me. There are just so few pro-life Democrats that it would hardly seem like home!


[soap box]I’m exactly the opposite. I do not support Mr. Bush’s tax program though. I find it totally, completely, unequivocally unwise. Especially in light of Greenspan’s very unusual decision to say bluntly (well, almost :)) It ain’t gonna work George!

Yeah- cutting taxes while increasing military spending so much can't be a good thing! The deficit is going to devour my generation whole if somebody doesn't do something to stop the bleeding.


And as for the U. S. occupation of Iraq… I am a decorated combat veteran and I have seen quite enough demagoguery, xenophobia, jingoism and other assorted stupidity come out of the office of President, thank you. Not to mention some incredibly arrogant and harmful silver spoon types in the cabinet. I’m speaking here of Mr. McNamara – and his counterpart in the current disaster.

Yeah, this is a terribly unjust war, if you're going by classical Augustinian just-war theory.

I rather like Colin Powell. I wish he'd run for president!


And don’t worry about Libertarians’ views about others. Seeing past the end of your nose is a prerequisite for real vision.[/soap box]

My biggest objection to the Libertarian position is that I feel there are clearly sometimes when we ought to give up some of our rights for the good of others. Libertarianism seems like the opposite of the Christian position to me- all about "me me me". My Freedoms. My Rights. My Money. Ayn Rand would be a good Libertarian. :lol:

[quote]I predict, from our conversation so far, that you will assume a position of leadership over yourself. At which point, my guess is that you will (give more authority to what Jesus said than what the church says he said that he really didn’t say). :)

Well actually, I tend to be moving in the opposite direction. I'm trusting what the Bible has to say more and more as I'm learning more about it, rather than the other way around. I already know that I don't want "leadership over myself". What I'm trying to do (with very mixed results) is follow Jesus- you know: "Not my will, but Yours be done"?

Thanks for your PMed notes, by the way!


Why reciprocity? I would think the answer to that is completely obvious. Or do you mean, why most all religions have it? My practical side says that the idea was transmitted along with just about every religious idea in existence, along the Silk Road.

I was more thinking why the morality of most religions is similar. Your Silk Road idea is a nice stab, but when we look at indigenous religious ethics, i.e. Native Americans, Australian Aboriginees, etc. who never even heard of the Silk Road, anthropologists tell us that their morality was also quite similar! Religion is a cultural universal as well. This is why I believe that this "neighbor as self" ethic is "hardwired" into our hearts and minds by our Creator.


RE: smilies

Too much typing! And my steenking shift key is giving me fits as it is!

Not an issue! Just click on the smiley to the left! It puts it in for you. :pat:



On the level of black Elk’s “true”, I agree completely. (nodding)

Black Elk- Native American? Yeah I think you know what I mean by "true".


It isn’t so much that, as my view of what the gospels are, is very radical. I am prepared to publicly say what they are not, but I don’t think anyone on these boards is ready to hear what I think they are. It’s my considered opinion that to voice my opinion on this would be a total disservice to anyone who has not come to a conclusion by dint of reading a wide range of scholarship on the subject, and then just letting it percolate for a few years.

Now THAT is cryptic! hehe. So can you share the names of a few scholars who share your views of the gospels? Crosson? Funk?


No need to be sorry Rando. This appears to be an important issue to you, so I’ll give you an answer. Probably more of one than you wanted:

Scholarship (Stephen J. Patterson citing Scott, Carlston and Crossan, for instance) knows (despite the fact that we can’t know these things) that the parable as given in Mark is not original to Jesus. There are very obvious additions that transform the parable that Jesus told into an allegory having to do with the death of Jesus. That is not to say, that the “son” does not still die; but in Jesus’ version there is no real indication that the “son” in question is himself.

So, what do I think it means? It is a demonstration of what is not of the Kingdom of God. Everyone loses in these sorts of stand-offs. Jesus would not have to have said (and didn’t) that the authorities then came and annihilated the “tenants”, that was a foregone conclusion in those days and times. In the Kingdom, neither side would have stubbornly forced the outcome. The total loss would be a shocking and unexpected turn of events in the story, to all who read it. It may have subverted the idea that all one had to do to get the land from the Romans was to kill them, thus fulfilling the purpose of parable.


Thanks! I was figuring that was where you would go with it. I promised not to comment on it, so I won't, but I think you know my dissent and my grounds for that dissent.


Whether or not it is genuine, is not an issue in my view. And the question still stands. What if I only had Mark as a reference? That is a reasonable question in light of the fact that it most likely happened. It is anachronistic to think otherwise. What if a person didn’t have all the warnings and what-have-you from the other gospels? I don’t expect you to answer, but the question remains.

Can you see why its authenticity is germaine to me? It, and passages like it, are part of what I build my worldview upon. I'm not alone in my contention that what many critical scholars regard as "fact" is little more than frivolous and erroneous conclusions based upon flawed methodology.

If I had only Mark as my source, I'd still be compelled to worship him as the incarnate son of God- based upon: his use of the Greek ego eime in his response to high priest, in verse 14:62 (which also has eschatological implications). More eschatological passages are in the parable of the wicked tenants of Mark 12 we discussed above, as well as the whole of chapter 13. If I had only one gospel, no matter which one it was, I'd still reach the same general conclusions about Jesus- though there would, of course be some differences. I thought we went over this before?


Only ten years, but during those ten years, almost all Jews in Jerusalem had been killed. Nobody knows what happened to the Jerusalem community headed by Peter. Some speculation is that some escaped and formed a community called Ebionites. Others say Nazarenes. During those ten years, the school at Jabneh (Jamnia) was established and Rabbinical Judaism began. Rabbinical Judaism was, unlike current Judaism, an evangelizing entity. During those ten years, Christians (presumably those who were not trapped in Jerusalem) and Rabbinical Jews were competing for converts. The Christians based their beliefs primarily on Mark’s genius and Q, while the Rabbinical Jews based theirs on Mishna and the school of Hillel. Both groups were still under the foot of Roman hegemony, but the Christians were in much closer contact with Roman power overall. Both groups wrote post 70 documents that gave the impression that the Temple still stood as of the writing. That tells me, that other things were retrojected as well. I think a lot of language in both Matthew and Luke is the direct result of these factors. We get more apologetic rhetoric and the tone becomes much more anti-Jewish. At the same time, it becomes more eschatological in tone. In much the same way as Jewish writing did during the time of the Maccabees, etc.

Peter himself was long dead (6 or 7 years) by the time the Romans trashed Jerusalem. Any community that he was the head of had been without him for quite some time when the Romans attacked.

Do you think those Christians who survived felt it nessesary to "revise" Mark in producing Matthew and Luke? Don't you think Mark also gives the impression that the Temple is still standing? What would be the advantage to the Christian communities to retroject the impression of a still standing Temple into Matthew and Luke? The Pharisees as an organization disbanded entirely with the destruction of the Temple, since it was their focus. Writing them into the story as an afterthought wouldn't seem to have much advantage to me. Sorry to be asking all these questions, but they're some of the reasons I have a hard time buying some theories that are flouted around.

I know you're probably getting sick of me linking you over to Tektonics, but this one's very relevant to the discussion:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

JP Holding does go a bit far for my tastes with his extra early dating of the gospels, but some of the points he makes are quite convincing.


RE: Teeth gnashing

Maybe not. But weeping usually implies lament. And the gnashing teeth imagery is very war-like in it’s apparent allusion to David being surrounded by his enemies, if you ask me.

I agree! But it can also go very well with the concept of tormented souls in "hell".

[Fideist345]

Today @ 02:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297960#post297960)
Amazing Rando:



Temp Rando on parable.



[quote]You know, I probably would cast my hat in with the Democrats if not for their platform on abortion. That's a very big issue for me. There are just so few pro-life Democrats that it would hardly seem like home!

I generally vote Dem. But I gotta admit it is really weird looking around the party and seeing a bunch of egghead yuppies with advanced degrees. I think the average Dem is reluctant to mix religion and politics. They may agree with your moral stance, but not your willingness to try and legislate it onto everyone else. For most Dems, including me, the idea of tying my religious belief to my vote is quite repugnant.


I rather like Colin Powell. I wish he'd run for president!

I wasn’t speaking of Powell. I was speaking of the arrogant nut that spent taxpayer money to cover up art he, personally, found objectionable. The same person that would like very much to abrogate the 4th amendment… but that’s a whole ‘nuther issue and not germane to these boards.


My Freedoms. My Rights. My Money. Ayn Rand would be a good Libertarian.

(nodding) Poster girl, if you ask me.



Well actually, I tend to be moving in the opposite direction. I'm trusting what the Bible has to say more and more as I'm learning more about it, rather than the other way around. I already know that I don't want "leadership over myself". What I'm trying to do (with very mixed results) is follow Jesus- you know: "Not my will, but Yours be done"?

Okay. Whatever works.


Thanks for your PMed notes, by the way!

Sure. Let me know if you want more.


I was more thinking why the morality of most religions is similar. Your Silk Road idea is a nice stab, but when we look at indigenous religious ethics, i.e. Native Americans, Australian Aboriginees, etc. who never even heard of the Silk Road, anthropologists tell us that their morality was also quite similar! Religion is a cultural universal as well. This is why I believe that this "neighbor as self" ethic is "hardwired" into our hearts and minds by our Creator.

Religion is not a cultural universal. But the vast majority of cultures do have some sort of religion. You and Chesterton might have gotten along! Except that he would have probably seen you as a heretic – if he saw you at all. He was prone to solipsism in his early days.


Not an issue! Just click on the smiley to the left! It puts it in for you.

These are long posts. I do not tempt fate by composing them inside Tweb’s text editor.


Now THAT is cryptic! hehe. So can you share the names of a few scholars who share your views of the gospels? Crosson? Funk?

Nope. Some scholars have had some influence. So have some writers. But my view is as idiosyncratic as you’re ever going to see.


Thanks! I was figuring that was where you would go with it. I promised not to comment on it, so I won't, but I think you know my dissent and my grounds for that dissent.

Of course I do, which means I get to say: Told ya so!


Can you see why its authenticity is germaine to me? It, and passages like it, are part of what I build my worldview upon. I'm not alone in my contention that what many critical scholars regard as "fact" is little more than frivolous and erroneous conclusions based upon flawed methodology.

Right, you and Vork are of a mind on this issue! :) The methodology is flawed therefore it is useless. I’ll keep that in mind. :)


If I had only Mark as my source, I'd still be compelled to worship him as the incarnate son of God- based upon: his use of the Greek ego eime in his response to high priest, in verse 14:62 (which also has eschatological implications). More eschatological passages are in the parable of the wicked tenants of Mark 12 we discussed above, as well as the whole of chapter 13. If I had only one gospel, no matter which one it was, I'd still reach the same general conclusions about Jesus- though there would, of course be some differences. I thought we went over this before?

Yes we have, and I have concluded as a result, that you cannot claim objectivity in textual study, historical study or Sitz im Leben. Your theology precludes it.


Peter himself was long dead (6 or 7 years) by the time the Romans trashed Jerusalem. Any community that he was the head of had been without him for quite some time when the Romans attacked.

That’s not much of an answer I’m sorry to say. I’m also quite sorry that I spent several hours formulating a response only to have it summarily dismissed.


Do you think those Christians who survived felt it nessesary to "revise" Mark in producing Matthew and Luke? Don't you think Mark also gives the impression that the Temple is still standing? What would be the advantage to the Christian communities to retroject the impression of a still standing Temple into Matthew and Luke?

You don’t want to know. You can’t know or it will thrust itself into what for you, must be, and mess it up.


The Pharisees as an organization disbanded entirely with the destruction of the Temple, since it was their focus.

:) Maybe a Jewish person will disabuse you of this. Or maybe you can do it for yourself. Which Pharisee was in charge of the Temple? Which Pharisees were the temple priests? Which Pharisee did you go to see in order to arrange a sin offering? While you’re at it, once you find out who was in charge of the Temple, ask yourself how Paul could have been working for that person?


Writing them into the story as an afterthought wouldn't seem to have much advantage to me. Sorry to be asking all these questions, but they're some of the reasons I have a hard time buying some theories that are flouted around.

It requires some knowledge of how religion worked back then. It also requires some knowledge of the debates between the ECF and the Pagans. And it requires some knowledge of what those Greek trained debaters were forced to claim on behalf of their beliefs.


I know you're probably getting sick of me linking you over to Tektonics, but this one's very relevant to the discussion:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

JP Holding does go a bit far for my tastes with his extra early dating of the gospels, but some of the points he makes are quite convincing.

I have most of the pertinent Evangelical opinion on this, Rando. I have an Evangelical intro to the NT and I have a complete commentary, etc. Also, I’m aware of JPH’s views, Glenn Miller’s views and so on. I think the idea that the authors are anonymous is ludicrous too. But I also think that the idea of them being eyewitnesses has little merit. The authors were well known in their respective communities, none one of which could have been Jerusalem. I had some reasoning as to why here, but I think it would just make you even more uncomfortable, so I trashed it.


“ RE: Teeth gnashing Maybe not. But weeping usually implies lament. And the gnashing teeth imagery is very war-like in it’s apparent allusion to David being surrounded by his enemies, if you ask me. ”


I agree! But it can also go very well with the concept of tormented souls in "hell".

Fair enough, but my theology cannot encompass a hell, so there cannot be one.

[Xavier]

:offtopic:

Quick note... Ayn Rand believes in holding yourself above others... Libertarians seeks only to preserve individual rights.

Ayn would squash on the idea of society having rights. Libertarians believe as long as your aren't effecting anyone else, that you can do whatever you'd like...

Subtle difference maybe, But difference none the less.

Xavier

:offtopic:

I now return you to your normal topic, Thank you for your Patronage. :teeth:

[Jim E.]

Today @ 03:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297094#post297094)
Ben Franklin:



What about all the millions of people who, before Christianity, were following the morals of their religions ? I guess they really weren't moral, huh ? Oh boy ! It's pretty tough when you have to deal with this kind of intolerance. Morals exist in non-Christian philosophies and cultures, too ! There ! I said it !

Yep, you missed the point. Anyway, it is religious people who are the intolerant ones. Atheists just find their intolerance offensive, and get angry at their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Non-Christians enjoy their lives more without the oppressive burden of Christian morals. This a huge problem for Christians, and may be a factor in the death of Christianity. Christianity is largely dead in Europe, and is losing influence (although still strong) in the U.S.

Why would your imaginary god make life more enjoyable if you ignored his rules? That is my point.

Jim

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=298286#post298286)
Fideist345:

I generally vote Dem. But I gotta admit it is really weird looking around the party and seeing a bunch of egghead yuppies with advanced degrees. I think the average Dem is reluctant to mix religion and politics. They may agree with your moral stance, but not your willingness to try and legislate it onto everyone else. For most Dems, including me, the idea of tying my religious belief to my vote is quite repugnant.

I generally think that way too- about not legislating morality, except that abortion is a unique case for me because of the human life it destroys. When the rights and life of another are involved or potentially at risk, that's where the government ought to step in (in my opinion).

That said, I don't see how its possible for a truly honest person to seperate their religion from their politics. That is, if one is genuinely influenced by their religion, it will affect their actions and views on nearly everything- including their politics. If it doesn't, one might have grounds for questioning the person's religious sincerity. It is a different case for elected officials though, who must keep in mind the diversity of belief systems they represent. I'd imagine that our politics aren't too dissimilar.


I wasn’t speaking of Powell. I was speaking of the arrogant nut that spent taxpayer money to cover up art he, personally, found objectionable. The same person that would like very much to abrogate the 4th amendment… but that’s a whole ‘nuther issue and not germane to these boards.

Yeah, I think Powell's one of the few competant, loving people our president has surrounded himself with. You're referring to Ashcroft and his covering of the exposed breasts on the marble statue?


Okay. Whatever works.

I hope yours works for you.


Religion is not a cultural universal. But the vast majority of cultures do have some sort of religion. You and Chesterton might have gotten along! Except that he would have probably seen you as a heretic – if he saw you at all. He was prone to solipsism in his early days.

Oh but it is a cultural universal! I wish I had saved my anthropology textbook- it said that every culture- both ancient and modern- that we've discovered to date has had some form of religion. There were, of course, dissenters as there are today, but some form of religious belief has been strongly present in every culture we've ever discovered. I'll find you a quote in a minute:

aha! A quick search on google yielded this- from the author of my college Anthropology textbook Conrad Kottak of the University of Michigan. The quote can be found
here (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072500506/student_view0/chapter12/faqs.html).


How do anthropologists define religion?
For anthropologists, religion is a cultural universal, and it encompasses beliefs and behavior concerned with supernatural beings, powers, and forces.

Things like this fit nicely with the idea that the brain is "hard-wired" to seek God. Or, as the skeptics will cry, the humanity is naturally prone to self-delusion. Take your pick.


These are long posts. I do not tempt fate by composing them inside Tweb’s text editor.

You can always add them in after you've pasted the text into the response field. That way, you can do fun things like this:

:joy: :violin: :mm: :duh: :solly: :gpl: :cir:

:hijacked: :spam:

And so on.

:stop:


Nope. Some scholars have had some influence. So have some writers. But my view is as idiosyncratic as you’re ever going to see.

If you don't want to/ are unable to share them, that's fine, we'll just have one less thing for us to talk about.


Of course I do, which means I get to say: Told ya so!

Hey! Never let it be said that I don't want to hear somebody out. I enjoy learning about other people- what excites them, what they're passionate about, why they think what they do. Makes it easier to love them that way.


Right, you and Vork are of a mind on this issue! :) The methodology is flawed therefore it is useless. I’ll keep that in mind. :)

Arg! Well, I've never been said to think like Vork before. First time for everything I suppose. But please please please don't say I think like Jim Eisele! :rant: :egad:


Yes we have, and I have concluded as a result, that you cannot claim objectivity in textual study, historical study or Sitz im Leben. Your theology precludes it.

Well, not anymore! I don't think that I was claiming objectivity, only explaining why I interpret some passages differently than you. I'm biased just as much as the next guy!


That’s not much of an answer I’m sorry to say. I’m also quite sorry that I spent several hours formulating a response only to have it summarily dismissed.

:frown: Oy! Sorry to have dismissed your thoughts so lightly. I appreciate how thoughtful your responses have been. I wasn't sure how to respond, and I think I might have left that one prematurely. May I try again?

Thanks! This is me trying again:

I've read the "hypothetical" gospels of the Ebionites and Nazarenes. At this site (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html), the commentary mentions that the writer Epiphanius, in whose letter exist the only known fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionites, mentions that he is familiar with Hebrew versions of the Gospel of John and Acts. The commentary also notices that within the text of this "lost" gospel, it is very clear that it borrowed heavily from the Gospel of Luke.

This doesn't leave much room for the Post-Temple writings to have developed independantly, does it? :smile:

Your notion is that the increased eschatological passages in Matthew and Luke are because of the increased stress on the population after the sack of Jerusalem and the wholesale slaughter of the Jews and Christians, correct? As I pointed out in the previous post, Mark is not without its eschatological passages either. If Mark was written during the time of the general persecution of Christians by Nero in the 60'sAD, during which Peter and Paul both lost their lives, I guess you could explain away those passages that way.

However Paul's letters, even the ones critical scholars agree to be "genuine" (Thessalonians, for example), are rife with eschatological statements and hopes. All of Paul's writing was earlier than the gospels. Paul does give us some good historical clues as to the context of the times and the character of the earliest Christian communities.

I'm not very familiar with the apocryphal OT books of history like 1 and 2 Maccabees, but I bed they'd make an interesting read.

Have I made up for my earlier flippancy?


You don’t want to know. You can’t know or it will thrust itself into what for you, must be, and mess it up.

Well, I'm doing my best to be open minded, though I know its not always possible I still believe that if a good enough reason for rejecting what I think is true comes along, I'll abandon it. But maybe I really have no intention of leaving myself open like this. Sometimes its very hard to know yourself well enough. I'm sure you understand that.


:) Maybe a Jewish person will disabuse you of this. Or maybe you can do it for yourself. Which Pharisee was in charge of the Temple? Which Pharisees were the temple priests? Which Pharisee did you go to see in order to arrange a sin offering? While you’re at it, once you find out who was in charge of the Temple, ask yourself how Paul could have been working for that person?

Perhaps! there are a few Jewish guys posting over in the Comparative Religions section. I'll be sure and ask them about the historicity and role of the Pharisees. Agreed?


It requires some knowledge of how religion worked back then. It also requires some knowledge of the debates between the ECF and the Pagans. And it requires some knowledge of what those Greek trained debaters were forced to claim on behalf of their beliefs.

Are you suggesting that they the gospels were intentionally written to make them appear like eyewitness accounts or contemporary to the events they narrate? If so, they did a very good job, fooling so many for so long.


I have most of the pertinent Evangelical opinion on this, Rando. I have an Evangelical intro to the NT and I have a complete commentary, etc. Also, I’m aware of JPH’s views, Glenn Miller’s views and so on. I think the idea that the authors are anonymous is ludicrous too. But I also think that the idea of them being eyewitnesses has little merit. The authors were well known in their respective communities, none one of which could have been Jerusalem. I had some reasoning as to why here, but I think it would just make you even more uncomfortable, so I trashed it.

How kind of you, not wanting to make me squirm. :hrm:

I never said they were written in Jerusalem. The Roman pillaging and occupation would have caused most sensible Jerusalem residents to take to the hills or die trying. Even the traditional accounts as reported by the ECFs in their letters and sermons do not have any of the gospels being written in Jerusalem. Mark, for example, was believed to have been composed in Rome where Peter had established a following. Luke, as a Gentile, would have had no ethnic attachment to Jerusalem. John, it is said, was composed in Ephesus when the apostle was an old man. Being in Jerusalem is of no consequence to the historicity of the gospels as long as the writers were reliable witnesses or gathered their information from people who were there.


Fair enough, but my theology cannot encompass a hell, so there cannot be one.

I'm assuming that you see that you cannot claim objectivity either, as statements like this show. Is all theology merely speculation to you? :nsm:

EDIT TO ADD: Hey Fideist, I'd be honored if you'd take a visit to my web site linked to in my sig line. It's just my B+W photography plus some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think? Thanks! I don't get very many hits on my site for some reason. :ahem:

EDIT TO ADD (a second time): Over in the Comparative Religions section, Bill the Cat just gave me a few good links about the Pharisees as an actual historical group of people. Can you provide me with any sources that back up your claim that such a group did not exist?

[Ben Franklin]

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=298852#post298852)
Jim Eisele:

Yep, you missed the point. Anyway, it is religious people who are the intolerant ones. Atheists just find their intolerance offensive, and get angry at their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Non-Christians enjoy their lives more without the oppressive burden of Christian morals. This a huge problem for Christians, and may be a factor in the death of Christianity. Christianity is largely dead in Europe, and is losing influence (although still strong) in the U.S.

Why would your imaginary god make life more enjoyable if you ignored his rules? That is my point.

Jim

I agree with everything you wrote above. I don't get hot-headed about Christianity's intolerance: what perplexes me is how many of them think morality can't exist outside of their religion.

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=298390#post298390)
Xavier:

Quick note... Ayn Rand believes in holding yourself above others... Libertarians seeks only to preserve individual rights.

Ayn would squash on the idea of society having rights. Libertarians believe as long as your aren't effecting anyone else, that you can do whatever you'd like...

Subtle difference maybe, But difference none the less.

Xavier

I now return you to your normal topic, Thank you for your Patronage. :teeth:

Hey Xavier! thanks for the clarification. Good to see you around here again! You mentioned you had just taken (or are taking now) a philosophy course. Did you read any of Rand's books, or just summaries of her?

Question to Ben Franklin: have you been following this monstrous thread from the beginning? Go back and take a look at just how hot under the collar Jim gets about how stupid and backward we Christians are! :lol:

[Ben Franklin]

Today @ 03:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299486#post299486)
Amazing Rando:

Hey Xavier! thanks for the clarification. Good to see you around here again! You mentioned you had just taken (or are taking now) a philosophy course. Did you read any of Rand's books, or just summaries of her?

Question to Ben Franklin: have you been following this monstrous thread from the beginning? Go back and take a look at just how hot under the collar Jim gets about how stupid and backward we Christians are! :lol:

Philosophically speaking, there's been a LOT of work done over the last millenium that evolved Catholic doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas is probably the greatest Christian theologian to date. Catholicism is a fairly complex religion, so I can't say blanketly (is that really an adverb ?) that Christains are stupid and backwards... but the Christians that might fit this description aren't any worse than some rabid atheists I've heard. I'll have to read this thread in toto to see what you mean about Jim. So far, the only hot-heads I've personally seen on this board, have been chsalvia and epoetker.

P.S. If you want to talk about Rand, I've read some of her stuff: some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. I really like "Objectivist Epistemology", which makes a good case for realism, and is the basis of one of my threads (don't tell anyone!). No disrespect to the dead, but the thing that turned me off about Rand was not her ideas but her attitude: she was WAY too dogmatic ! Whew !

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299691#post299691)
Ben Franklin:

Philosophically speaking, there's been a LOT of work done over the last millenium that evolved Catholic doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas is probably the greatest Christian theologian to date. Catholicism is a fairly complex religion, so I can't say blanketly (is that really an adverb ?) that Christains are stupid and backwards... but the Christians that might fit this description aren't any worse than some rabid atheists I've heard. I'll have to read this thread in toto to see what you mean about Jim. So far, the only hot-heads I've personally seen on this board, have been chsalvia and epoetker.

Would you like me to cull up some quotes and links for you? Hehe. The complexity of a religious doctrine says nothing of the intelligence of its adherents!


P.S. If you want to talk about Rand, I've read some of her stuff: some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. I really like &quot;Objectivist Epistemology&quot;, which makes a good case for realism, and is the basis of one of my threads (don't tell anyone!). No disrespect to the dead, but the thing that turned me off about Rand was not her ideas but her attitude: she was WAY too dogmatic ! Whew !

I read her novel Anthem. It layed out her philosophy as well as her heftier novels and essays. I chuckle about her because her ethical philosophy is the exact opposite of the Christian ethic. There are no greater opposites than Christianity and Objectivism or egoism.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299436#post299436)
Amazing Rando:




[quote]That said, I don't see how its possible for a truly honest person to seperate their religion from their politics.

Do you realize what some people might infer from such a statement? That’s a potential conversation stopper (of flame starter) if ever I’ve read one. :)


That is, if one is genuinely influenced by their religion, it will affect their actions and views on nearly everything- including their politics. If it doesn't, one might have grounds for questioning the person's religious sincerity.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t think I have the right to inflict my religious beliefs onto a secular society. The United States of America is a secular nation governed by secular law.


It is a different case for elected officials though, who must keep in mind the diversity of belief systems they represent. I'd imagine that our politics aren't too dissimilar.

From what you’ve written above, I think they’d be different enough. :)


You're referring to Ashcroft and his covering of the exposed breasts on the marble statue?

Yeah, but I had him conflated with Rumsfeld (my memory stinks!). :( But it doesn’t matter in the long run. I find them both to be lacking in wisdom – and appropriate behavior for public officials.


“ Okay. Whatever works. ”



I hope yours works for you.

Of course it does. If it didn’t, I’d just change it. :)


Oh but it [religion] is a cultural universal! I wish I had saved my anthropology textbook- it said that every culture- both ancient and modern- that we've discovered to date has had some form of religion. There were, of course, dissenters as there are today, but some form of religious belief has been strongly present in every culture we've ever discovered. I'll find you a quote in a minute:

aha! A quick search on google yielded this- from the author of my college Anthropology textbook Conrad Kottak of the University of Michigan. The quote can be found
here.

I’m glad you specified some form. Otherwise I’d wonder if the professor had taken into account The Soviet Union, Northern Europe, Cuba, Mainland China…


Things like this fit nicely with the idea that the brain is "hard-wired" to seek God. Or, as the skeptics will cry, the humanity is naturally prone to self-delusion. Take your pick.

Could I amend that to: many, but not all people are predisposed to god belief?


Hey! Never let it be said that I don't want to hear somebody out. I enjoy learning about other people- what excites them, what they're passionate about, why they think what they do. Makes it easier to love them that way.

Okay, I’ll buy that. :)


“ Yes we have, and I have concluded as a result, that you cannot claim objectivity in textual study, historical study or Sitz im Leben. Your theology precludes it. ”


Well, not anymore! I don't think that I was claiming objectivity, only explaining why I interpret some passages differently than you. I'm biased just as much as the next guy!

My comment had to do with supposedly flawed scholarship. I think that if you are going to claim such things, you probably should be prepared to give a rational explanation for why you think the scholarship is flawed. By rational, I mean that you need to be as certain as possible that no statement or observation you make can be viewed as any sort of logical fallacy.


I've read the "hypothetical" gospels of the Ebionites and Nazarenes. At this site, the commentary mentions that the writer Epiphanius, in whose letter exist the only known fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionites, mentions that he is familiar with Hebrew versions of the Gospel of John and Acts. The commentary also notices that within the text of this "lost" gospel, it is very clear that it borrowed heavily from the Gospel of Luke.

Well, how would the commentator know this, if scholarship that knows who and when and based on what, is flawed? And please explain, if you don’t mind, what the gospel of the Ebionites has to do with the whereabouts of the Jerusalem community?


This doesn't leave much room for the Post-Temple writings to have developed independantly, does it?

I think there might be an unwarranted assumption in the above statement. The gospel of the Ebionites may or may not have been written by Ebionites. The Ebionites may or may not have been the descendents of the Jerusalem community. But in any case, the gospel of the Ebionites is a side issue.


Your notion is that the increased eschatological passages in Matthew and Luke are because of the increased stress on the population after the sack of Jerusalem and the wholesale slaughter of the Jews and Christians, correct?

Not exactly. And I said eschatological when I meant apocalyptic. Sorry about that. Apocalyptic thinking/writing is generally the result of being occupied or oppressed. In the case of Jews and Christians, the Romans were the oppressors. The apocalyptic literature was a way or method of dealing with oppression without resorting to physical violence.


As I pointed out in the previous post, Mark is not without its eschatological passages either. If Mark was written during the time of the general persecution of Christians by Nero in the 60'sAD, during which Peter and Paul both lost their lives, I guess you could explain away those passages that way.

Possibly. Maybe probably. But again, I was using the wrong terminology.


However Paul's letters, even the ones critical scholars agree to be "genuine" (Thessalonians, for example), are rife with eschatological statements and hopes. All of Paul's writing was earlier than the gospels. Paul does give us some good historical clues as to the context of the times and the character of the earliest Christian communities.

Quite so.


I'm not very familiar with the apocryphal OT books of history like 1 and 2 Maccabees, but I bed they'd make an interesting read.

Reading this made me realize that I was using the wrong darn term! Thanks.


Have I made up for my earlier flippancy?

I don’t think you meant to be “flippant”.


“ You don’t want to know. You can’t know or it will thrust itself into what for you, must be, and mess it up. ”



Well, I'm doing my best to be open minded, though I know its not always possible I still believe that if a good enough reason for rejecting what I think is true comes along, I'll abandon it. But maybe I really have no intention of leaving myself open like this. Sometimes its very hard to know yourself well enough. I'm sure you understand that.

Sure do! I (and here’s where some Taoist thought comes in) attempt to find out what is and adapt to that. Rather than deciding what is and attempting to adapt what is, to what I would rather it were.


“ :) Maybe a Jewish person will disabuse you of this. Or maybe you can do it for yourself. Which Pharisee was in charge of the Temple? Which Pharisees were the temple priests? Which Pharisee did you go to see in order to arrange a sin offering? While you’re at it, once you find out who was in charge of the Temple, ask yourself how Paul could have been working for that person? ”


Perhaps! there are a few Jewish guys posting over in the Comparative Religions section. I'll be sure and ask them about the historicity and role of the Pharisees. Agreed?

Sure! I think you’ll find that they believe they are the spiritual descendents of the Pharisees and Hillel.


“ It requires some knowledge of how religion worked back then. It also requires some knowledge of the debates between the ECF and the Pagans. And it requires some knowledge of what those Greek trained debaters were forced to claim on behalf of their beliefs. ”



[quote]Are you suggesting that they the gospels were intentionally written to make them appear like eyewitness accounts or contemporary to the events they narrate?

I think the gospels are kerygma hung on a framework of historical events. But I think they are much more than that as well. And part of what they are contains apologetic material.


If so, they did a very good job, fooling so many for so long.

I doubt people in the first century were fooled. :)


I never said they were written in Jerusalem. The Roman pillaging and occupation would have caused most sensible Jerusalem residents to take to the hills or die trying.

A tall order. The city was under siege. A wall had been erected around the perimeter. Thousand of crucified bodies adorned the wall. Presumably those bodies were those of attempted escapees. There is some speculation that the Christian community abandoned Jerusalem in 66, after Florus, the Roman prefect forced a Jewish rebellion by stealing money fro the Temple treasury. But again, nobody knows what happened to them.


“ Fair enough, but my theology cannot encompass a hell, so there cannot be one. ”



I'm assuming that you see that you cannot claim objectivity either, as statements like this show. Is all theology merely speculation to you?

Of course! :) I was being facetious. Still, I’m not the one attempting to say that my beliefs are based solely on evidence. In fact, I’d go the other way and say they’re based mainly on intuition. Evidence implies empirical or rational evidence. Perhaps you were convinced of the truth of the Bible along the lines of probability?

I don’t BTW, believe there is a hell. If there is, I think the exegete has to go the long way around the horse to prove there is/was from the gospels (Jesus said there was). I have yet to see anyone do much more than draw weak inferences by using the gospels. And no, I don’t give a fig for Paul’s opinion. :)


EDIT TO ADD: Hey Fideist, I'd be honored if you'd take a visit to my web site linked to in my sig line. It's just my B+W photography plus some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think? Thanks! I don't get very many hits on my site for some reason.

I already did. Nice stuff! I’ll take another look though, just in case you’ve added new material. :)

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299458#post299458)
Ben Franklin:



[quote]I'm not a theist...!

No immortals for you, eh? :)

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299691#post299691)
Ben Franklin:

St. Thomas Aquinas is probably the greatest Christian theologian to date.

I almost missed that! You can understand him? Why do you think he is the greatest? Who would you say comes in second? Just curious.

[Jim E.]

Yesterday @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299691#post299691)
Ben Franklin:
... but the Christians that might fit this description aren't any worse than some rabid atheists I've heard.

Thanks for clarifying that you're not a theist. If atheists supported outlawing Christianity, I would not go along with them.

Jim

[hospitaller]

Jim wrote

"Islam just seems to be a religion that was forced on people (much as Christianity has been). I'm at the point where religions make far more sense when understood as cultural phenomena rather than divine revelation. Islam didn't even exist before the seventh century! "

Great, so when do we see the "www.quraninquestion.org" site?

[Amazing Rando]

Good morning Fideist! I like the horses! Are they yours, or just a random horse picture?


Yesterday @ 08:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=301835#post301835)
Fideist345:
That said, I don't see how its possible for a truly honest person to seperate their religion from their politics.

Do you realize what some people might infer from such a statement? That’s a potential conversation stopper (of flame starter) if ever I’ve read one. :)

Hopefully those people will take that statement in mind of the context of the rest of what I said!


I’m sorry, but I just don’t think I have the right to inflict my religious beliefs onto a secular society. The United States of America is a secular nation governed by secular law.

I agree with you. Even though my sympathies are with him, I agree that what Judge Moore did in defiance of the court order was wrong. I guess I've got a mind like Bill Pryor like that.

Though if my religious convictions tell me that an unborn child is a person, and not something to be disgarded as a matter of convenience, I ought to stand up for the issue. After all, I oppose the killing of innocent people in all other circumstances. It's only consistent if I oppose it in this one too.

In addition, if my religious convictions tell me that it is right and good to help out the less fortunate, I would support government efforts to do so, even if it means paying more taxes out of my pocket. E.g. welfare, homeless shelters, unemployment benefits, food stamps, housing subsidies etc. That's where my politics fall in line with traditional Democratic values.


From what you’ve written above, I think they’d be different enough. :)

Well, when you vote Dem, do you do it with more of an appreciation for their stand on social/moral values, or do you do it more in support of their stand on economic policies?

It's the latter for me.


Yeah, but I had him conflated with Rumsfeld (my memory stinks!). :( But it doesn’t matter in the long run. I find them both to be lacking in wisdom – and appropriate behavior for public officials.

Well, Ashcroft likes to run the law enforcement and intelligence agencies like their his own private army, so not much difference I guess! :grin:


I’m glad you specified some form. Otherwise I’d wonder if the professor had taken into account The Soviet Union, Northern Europe, Cuba, Mainland China…

I thought I had made that clear earlier? That's absolutely true. Every culture we've ever studied anthropologically has had some form of religious belief- at the very least, animism. That suggests to me that religious belief is something inherent in human nature!


Could I amend that to: many, but not all people are predisposed to god belief?

You could, but it'd be inaccurate! There are exceptions in every society- just look at all the atheists around us in this forum- but in general, every human society- the large majority of members of the society, in fact, have held some form of religious belief.


My comment had to do with supposedly flawed scholarship. I think that if you are going to claim such things, you probably should be prepared to give a rational explanation for why you think the scholarship is flawed. By rational, I mean that you need to be as certain as possible that no statement or observation you make can be viewed as any sort of logical fallacy.

That's been done pretty well by others in the past, and I agree with their criticisms. As a starting point, the anti-supernatural bias held by many precludes them from even admitting the possibility that the miracles described in the gospel accounts are genuine. If one rules the supernatural out a priori, of course one is going to come up with portraits of Jesus like Borg, Funk, Crossan, and a host of others have. As has been pointed out by many, such scholarship tends to have the Jesus created by the scholar greatly reflecting the scholar him/herself.


Well, how would the commentator know this, if scholarship that knows who and when and based on what, is flawed? And please explain, if you don’t mind, what the gospel of the Ebionites has to do with the whereabouts of the Jerusalem community?

You had mentioned the Ebionites and the Nazarenes as possible successors to the Jerusalem community. I was just bringing up that the texts written by these two groups seem to be dependant on the canonical gospels. The writer in whose letter is found the fragments of G.Ebionites claims elsewhere in the letter to be familiar with Hebrew versions of G.John and Acts.

The reason the commentary notes that GEbionites seems dependant on Luke (at least the extant portions of G.Ebionites) is because the first few verses of G.Ebionites match up very closely with the beginning of G.Luke. Did you take a look at the link I provided? Comparing textual similarities to try and determine the sources of the gospels is quite different than trying to cram the canonical gospels through the filter of the prejudices of modern scholars. The former gave us the helpful theory of Q/Markan Priority. The latter gave us the swiss cheese speculation of Funk et al.



This doesn't leave much room for the Post-Temple writings to have developed independantly, does it?

I think there might be an unwarranted assumption in the above statement. The gospel of the Ebionites may or may not have been written by Ebionites. The Ebionites may or may not have been the descendents of the Jerusalem community. But in any case, the gospel of the Ebionites is a side issue.

I agree with you. I might have gone on a bit of an irrelevant tangent. The Gospel fo the Ebionites might not even have actually existed for all we know. It is a side issue. But the wherabouts of the Jerusalem Christian community are also a side issue. Long before Jerusalem was sacked and even before Peter was killed, the apostles had scattered around the known world- to "preach the gospel to all nations" as they had been commissioned to do. Peter himself was in Rome at the time he was arrested and killed. I agree with you that the gospels were most likely not written in Jerusalem- it's a bit of a no-brainer considering the destruction of the city and all.


Not exactly. And I said eschatological when I meant apocalyptic. Sorry about that. Apocalyptic thinking/writing is generally the result of being occupied or oppressed. In the case of Jews and Christians, the Romans were the oppressors. The apocalyptic literature was a way or method of dealing with oppression without resorting to physical violence.

That's a possibility. Wasn't there a good deal of oppression going on before the temple was destryed too? I realize that there are very sharp differences between eschatological, and apocalyptic, but sometimes I have a bit of trouble separating the two amidst the context of the gospel texts. Could you give me an example of some writing that is eschatological but not apocalyptic?


Reading this made me realize that I was using the wrong darn term! Thanks.

Sure! "Now we know! And knowing is half the battle!" I guess with our generational differences you probably won't know where that quote came from.



I don’t think you meant to be “flippant”.

You're right, I meant no disrespect. Communicating solely electronically like this has some serious drawbacks as far as emotive expression goes. We misconstrue others' words without a face to back them up and correct us.


Sure do! I (and here’s where some Taoist thought comes in) attempt to find out what is and adapt to that. Rather than deciding what is and attempting to adapt what is, to what I would rather it were.

I'm think I'm catching the subtle implications here. If it's what I think it is, it's sort of insulting, though it's a very sentiment among the true skeptics on this forum.


Sure! I think you’ll find that they believe they are the spiritual descendents of the Pharisees and Hillel.

Well, I just got a very good response from yosiah_ap over in Comparative Religions. He says this,


Yes, the Pharisees were a sect of Judaism in the Herodian temple period. I think the writings of Josephus, The Christian Scriptures, and other writings establish this clearly. I am told that the oldest evidence of Phariseeic Judaism (now Orthodox Judaism) is dated to about 300 b.c.

Can you exmplain to me again why you believe the Pharisees were not an actual group of people? I think you're mistaken here.


I think the gospels are kerygma hung on a framework of historical events. But I think they are much more than that as well. And part of what they are contains apologetic material.

You're right, they certainly do have apologetic material. They are a genre all to themselves, that's for sure. Three Gospels, the book I told you about earlier is a great source for studying the gospels as a literary genre. I tend to believe that they're a bit more trustworthy than you feel they are because of who the authors most likely were.


If so, they did a very good job, fooling so many for so long.

I doubt people in the first century were fooled. :)

Could you elaborate a bit more? How do you think the gospels were initially perceived by their original audiences?


A tall order. The city was under siege. A wall had been erected around the perimeter. Thousand of crucified bodies adorned the wall. Presumably those bodies were those of attempted escapees. There is some speculation that the Christian community abandoned Jerusalem in 66, after Florus, the Roman prefect forced a Jewish rebellion by stealing money fro the Temple treasury. But again, nobody knows what happened to them.

Good point. I really need to read Josephus for myself. It'd give me some more good background. As I mentioned above, I think the whereabouts of the Jerusalem community are immaterial in the history of the early Church precisely because of the fact that the apostles had already established so many other thriving communities before the sack of Jerusalem.


Of course! :) I was being facetious. Still, I’m not the one attempting to say that my beliefs are based solely on evidence. In fact, I’d go the other way and say they’re based mainly on intuition. Evidence implies empirical or rational evidence. Perhaps you were convinced of the truth of the Bible along the lines of probability?

Yes! That's precisely it! As I said befort, there's no way to "prove" these things happened or didn't happen, but the probability of the events as suggested by the clues we have is what convinced me, and continues to convince me. As to those things you consider "speculation", I agree they are, but with the Bible being so trustworthy in other matters, I trust its theology as well. I mentioned in my previous post I'm not too sure about inerrancy, but I believe the Bible is "true" in the way we talked about.


I don’t BTW, believe there is a hell. If there is, I think the exegete has to go the long way around the horse to prove there is/was from the gospels (Jesus said there was). I have yet to see anyone do much more than draw weak inferences by using the gospels. And no, I don’t give a fig for Paul’s opinion. :)

I figured you didn't. Paul is so valuable to us because he's the only pre-gospel Christian literature available. He represents the earliest known source of Christian thought, yet he even quotes several early Christian creeds and hymns that must have predated even him by a few years- these show that at least as far back as 10 years after Jesus, Christians were worshipping him as God's son, and believed that he literally and physically rose from the dead.

"Weak inferences?" All of the passages I brought up that clearly show Jesus speaking of a place apart from God's presence you've dismissed as inauthentic! This seems to me to be sort of the same thing as I was describing above about scholars picking the parts they like out of the gospel and without sufficient reason, throwing them on the rubbish pile.:huh:


EDIT TO ADD: Hey Fideist, I'd be honored if you'd take a visit to my web site linked to in my sig line. It's just my B+W photography plus some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think? Thanks! I don't get very many hits on my site for some reason.
I already did. Nice stuff! I’ll take another look though, just in case you’ve added new material. :)

No new material, just thought you might like my stuff! It's sort of an outlet for my creativity and spirituality in one!

By the way, I'm flying to Denver this weekend to see the very last concert of my favorite band ever,Five Iron Frenzy (http://www.fiveironfrenzy.com), so I probably won't be able to respond to you until Monday.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 09:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=304517#post304517)
Amazing Rando:



Good morning Fideist! I like the horses! Are they yours, or just a random horse picture?

Thanks! It’s part of a series from a few years back I was doing to mark some of the local hinterlands before the developers can get to ‘em.


“ I’m sorry, but I just don’t think I have the right to inflict my religious beliefs onto a secular society. The United States of America is a secular nation governed by secular law. ”


I agree with you.

In that case, I agree with you!


Though if my religious convictions tell me that an unborn child is a person, and not something to be disgarded as a matter of convenience, I ought to stand up for the issue. After all, I oppose the killing of innocent people in all other circumstances. It's only consistent if I oppose it in this one too.

I take it you don’t think that one issue voting is reasonable? That’s what I mean by tying your vote to your religious belief.


“ From what you’ve written above, I think they’d be different enough. :) ”



Well, when you vote Dem, do you do it with more of an appreciation for their stand on social/moral values, or do you do it more in support of their stand on economic policies?

At the moment, both. I generally find moderates in both parties attractive, but at this moment, I think the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of conservative policy making. IMO, they have become insensitive to criticism and are embarked on a self-absorbed self-righteous sojourn. In 1980, I thought the pendulum had swung too far in favor of Dem policy making. Neither party has a lock on anything. But at the moment I’m voting against the arrogant.


Well, Ashcroft likes to run the law enforcement and intelligence agencies like their his own private army, so not much difference I guess!

Agreed!


I thought I had made that clear earlier? That's absolutely true. Every culture we've ever studied anthropologically has had some form of religious belief- at the very least, animism. That suggests to me that religious belief is something inherent in human nature!

Let me make it clearer. I think to say every prehistoric culture might be correct. So might every primitive. Even every pre-modern might do it. But “culture” defines more than primitive or prehistoric culture. If you want to say the predecessors or patriarchs of current day cultures, I’d agree with that too. But to say that all cultures have some degree of religious belief sounds fishy to me.


“ Could I amend that to: many, but not all people are predisposed to god belief? ”



You could, but it'd be inaccurate! There are exceptions in every society- just look at all the atheists around us in this forum- but in general, every human society- the large majority of members of the society, in fact, have held some form of religious belief.

Could you tell me how this statement differs in essence from what you quoted?


“ My comment had to do with supposedly flawed scholarship. I think that if you are going to claim such things, you probably should be prepared to give a rational explanation for why you think the scholarship is flawed. By rational, I mean that you need to be as certain as possible that no statement or observation you make can be viewed as any sort of logical fallacy. ”



That's been done pretty well by others in the past, and I agree with their criticisms. As a starting point, the anti-supernatural bias held by many precludes them from even admitting the possibility that the miracles described in the gospel accounts are genuine.

How is it bias to study those things that are observed to be within the realm of standard historical scrutiny? How could you use standard historiography to study a miracle claim?


If one rules the supernatural out a priori, of course one is going to come up with portraits of Jesus like Borg, Funk, Crossan, and a host of others have. As has been pointed out by many, such scholarship tends to have the Jesus created by the scholar greatly reflecting the scholar him/herself.

Yes, but the Jesus in question is a human type Jesus. That is because it is essentially futile (watch out for those Borg over there) to attempt to do any sort of actual research (in the standard sense) on a miracle claim.


“ Well, how would the commentator know this, if scholarship that knows who and when and based on what, is flawed? And please explain, if you don’t mind, what the gospel of the Ebionites has to do with the whereabouts of the Jerusalem community? ”



You had mentioned the Ebionites and the Nazarenes as possible successors to the Jerusalem community. I was just bringing up that the texts written by these two groups seem to be dependant on the canonical gospels.

Yeah, but you see the method for determining that these texts were based on canonical gospels is the same method used to say that the parable of the vineyard/winepress, tenants/husbandman contains some text that is dependent on other sources.


The writer in whose letter is found the fragments of G.Ebionites claims elsewhere in the letter to be familiar with Hebrew versions of G.John and Acts.

The reason the commentary notes that GEbionites seems dependant on Luke (at least the extant portions of G.Ebionites) is because the first few verses of G.Ebionites match up very closely with the beginning of G.Luke.

Right. Exactly. And line 12:1b, for instance, of Mark’s version of the parable is probably taken directly from Isaiah’s “Song of the Vineyard” in Is 5.


Did you take a look at the link I provided?

Didn’t need to, in this case. I’m not at odds with critical scholarship that says it can say that something is dependent on something else. But I’ll go back and take a look when I think of it. Edited to add:

I took a look at it, Rando. It's from Peter Kirby's ancient stuff. The comments are from a critical scholar active sometime in the 1920s.


Comparing textual similarities to try and determine the sources of the gospels is quite different than trying to cram the canonical gospels through the filter of the prejudices of modern scholars. The former gave us the helpful theory of Q/Markan Priority. The latter gave us the swiss cheese speculation of Funk et al.

Maybe, but the vineyard in Mark sure seems awfully similar the vineyard in Isaiah. Moreover, I’m not a single source researcher. I used the Patterson reference because it is a book I’m quite familiar with. But here is an entry from a moderate commentary that is quite full on this particular subject. From Harper’s Bible Commentary (sent PM in an attempt to save band width):

I can give you other quotes from other sources independent of Crossan and Funk that say pretty much the same thing.


I agree with you. I might have gone on a bit of an irrelevant tangent. The Gospel fo the Ebionites might not even have actually existed for all we know. It is a side issue. But the wherabouts of the Jerusalem Christian community are also a side issue. Long before Jerusalem was sacked and even before Peter was killed, the apostles had scattered around the known world- to "preach the gospel to all nations" as they had been commissioned to do.

Okay, but the question then becomes were they carrying copies of a gospel? Any gospel? If so, which one? More than one? I don’t think so. I’m pretty well convinced they were carrying copies of Didache or a similar writing.


Peter himself was in Rome at the time he was arrested and killed.

I think the above is tradition. Tradition is notoriously unreliable as history, but quite good in other areas such as apologetics.


I agree with you that the gospels were most likely not written in Jerusalem- it's a bit of a no-brainer considering the destruction of the city and all.

That’s the rub for me, Rando. Why not Jerusalem? Even if we go with the exodus in 66, there was still way more than enough time for an eyewitness to copy down what happened from 30-33. Why wait thirty-odd years to copy down the details in a different city? Be careful here, because the usual answer brings up the question of how long it was before Jesus’ followers would expect his return. And then one has to get into the niggling questions such as what “generation” means.


“ Not exactly. And I said eschatological when I meant apocalyptic. Sorry about that. Apocalyptic thinking/writing is generally the result of being occupied or oppressed. In the case of Jews and Christians, the Romans were the oppressors. The apocalyptic literature was a way or method of dealing with oppression without resorting to physical violence. ”



That's a possibility. Wasn't there a good deal of oppression going on before the temple was destryed too? I realize that there are very sharp differences between eschatological, and apocalyptic, but sometimes I have a bit of trouble separating the two amidst the context of the gospel texts. Could you give me an example of some writing that is eschatological but not apocalyptic?

It’s really too long a discussion to get into in this format. Tom Wright goes into Apocalyptic thought in great detail in “The New Testament and the People of God”. Beginning on page 280. That section mainly covers Jewish Apocalyptic literature. But he continues the discussion on pg 392 where he introduces apocalyptic literature as contained in Mark. If I just gave you the passages without the discussion, I’m afraid you’ll miss the thrust. Still, you probably don’t have access to the book, so I’ll give you the first instance from Mark on pg 392: Mark 13: 14: ““But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains;” As usual I’m using the NRSV. Edited to add Did it again! :) This is apocalyptic, but maybe not eschatoligical. Though as I infer from what you said, it is very difficult to separate the last battle from the end of time. It seems one implies the other.



“ Reading this made me realize that I was using the wrong darn term! Thanks. ”



Sure! "Now we know! And knowing is half the battle!" I guess with our generational differences you probably won't know where that quote came from.

Nope! :)



“ I don’t think you meant to be “flippant”. ”



You're right, I meant no disrespect. Communicating solely electronically like this has some serious drawbacks as far as emotive expression goes. We misconstrue others' words without a face to back them up and correct us.

Yeah, without facial cues and voice cues, it can be a solid mess.


“ Sure do! I (and here’s where some Taoist thought comes in) attempt to find out what is and adapt to that. Rather than deciding what is and attempting to adapt what is, to what I would rather it were. ”



I'm think I'm catching the subtle implications here. If it's what I think it is, it's sort of insulting, though it's a very sentiment among the true skeptics on this forum.

Oh! No! Not at all! It’s not what you think it is. It is a statement about me before and after I took a very hard look at my beliefs, religion in general and what have you. At one point I was as skeptical as anyone you’ll ever come across. The skepticism was mainly due to my former personal reading of the Bible, way too much focus on reward in the afterlife and about a year and a half of trying to hold off some very well educated skeptics. This was when I began reading from all viewpoints. It was almost a lost cause. But a few years later a glimmer of belief appeared. I’m still working on it.


“ Sure! I think you’ll find that they believe they are the spiritual descendents of the Pharisees and Hillel. ”



Well, I just got a very good response from yosiah_ap over in Comparative Religions. He says this,

“ Yes, the Pharisees were a sect of Judaism in the Herodian temple period. I think the writings of Josephus, The Christian Scriptures, and other writings establish this clearly. I am told that the oldest evidence of Phariseeic Judaism (now Orthodox Judaism) is dated to about 300 b.c. ”



Can you exmplain to me again why you believe the Pharisees were not an actual group of people? I think you're mistaken here.

I would agree, if I could remember ever saying such a thing. Could you post the quote you’re referring to, please?


“ I think the gospels are kerygma hung on a framework of historical events. But I think they are much more than that as well. And part of what they are contains apologetic material. ”



You're right, they certainly do have apologetic material. They are a genre all to themselves, that's for sure. Three Gospels, the book I told you about earlier is a great source for studying the gospels as a literary genre. I tend to believe that they're a bit more trustworthy than you feel they are because of who the authors most likely were.

I feel that they are trustworthy, and true. I just don’t think they’re literal history.


“ If so, they did a very good job, fooling so many for so long. I doubt people in the first century were fooled. :) ”



Could you elaborate a bit more? How do you think the gospels were initially perceived by their original audiences?

I think they saw it as kerygma on a framework of historical events.


“ A tall order. The city was under siege. A wall had been erected around the perimeter. Thousand of crucified bodies adorned the wall. Presumably those bodies were those of attempted escapees. There is some speculation that the Christian community abandoned Jerusalem in 66, after Florus, the Roman prefect forced a Jewish rebellion by stealing money fro the Temple treasury. But again, nobody knows what happened to them. ”



Good point. I really need to read Josephus for myself. It'd give me some more good background. As I mentioned above, I think the whereabouts of the Jerusalem community are immaterial in the history of the early Church precisely because of the fact that the apostles had already established so many other thriving communities before the sack of Jerusalem.

But don’t you suspect that it is extremely unlikely that the pillars would allow anyone not physically connected with the Jerusalem community to write unsupervised “memoirs” or gospels?


“ Of course! :) I was being facetious. Still, I’m not the one attempting to say that my beliefs are based solely on evidence. In fact, I’d go the other way and say they’re based mainly on intuition. Evidence implies empirical or rational evidence. Perhaps you were convinced of the truth of the Bible along the lines of probability? ”



Yes! That's precisely it! As I said befort, there's no way to "prove" these things happened or didn't happen, but the probability of the events as suggested by the clues we have is what convinced me, and continues to convince me. As to those things you consider "speculation", I agree they are, but with the Bible being so trustworthy in other matters, I trust its theology as well. I mentioned in my previous post I'm not too sure about inerrancy, but I believe the Bible is "true" in the way we talked about.

Me too! But where we are most likely going to part company is whether or not later copyists decide to slightly alter what the original authors wrote. We will most likely also part company if an assertion is made that the various writers never placed in the mouth of Jesus, kerygma or other preaching that originated with someone besides Jesus.


“ I don’t BTW, believe there is a hell. If there is, I think the exegete has to go the long way around the horse to prove there is/was from the gospels (Jesus said there was). I have yet to see anyone do much more than draw weak inferences by using the gospels. And no, I don’t give a fig for Paul’s opinion. :) ”



I figured you didn't. Paul is so valuable to us because he's the only pre-gospel Christian literature available. He represents the earliest known source of Christian thought, yet he even quotes several early Christian creeds and hymns that must have predated even him by a few years- these show that at least as far back as 10 years after Jesus, Christians were worshipping him as God's son, and believed that he literally and physically rose from the dead.

If you mean canonical pre-gospel literature, I agree. There is a very early creed, I think the earliest known, in 1 Cor. But guess what? Paul did not credit his source! How much of Paul is Paul and how much of Paul is other sources subsumed or appropriated? Quite a lot, I think.


"Weak inferences?" All of the passages I brought up that clearly show Jesus speaking of a place apart from God's presence you've dismissed as inauthentic!

I thought it was one set of passages. I thought I just read the others differently than you. The narrow gate, for instance is one that I read very differently from you and of course there was the imagery in Mark 9.


This seems to me to be sort of the same thing as I was describing above about scholars picking the parts they like out of the gospel and without sufficient reason, throwing them on the rubbish pile.

In my case it is a matter of priorities and an inability to accept a major contradiction. Jesus was above all compassionate. Any time I see Jesus as anything other than that, I wonder whether he is talking, or somebody has decided to speak based on how they were convinced Jesus would have said, were he there in person. I think a lot of times, the KJV’s rendering of Paul’s “through a glass darkly” comes into play. The inspiration is there, but it is colored by other issues that the writer cannot seem to disassociate himself from. Like it or not, the writers were human. And I believe that sometimes we have to read their personal concerns convictions and agendas back out of the text.



By the way, I'm flying to Denver this weekend to see the very last concert of my favorite band ever,Five Iron Frenzy, so I probably won't be able to respond to you until Monday.

Hey! Have a great time! Needless to say, I’ve never heard of them. :) And a look at their web site only created more confusion.

Rando, I think we need to cut these posts down to a much more manageable size. How about you pick an issue or two, and just let the rest drop for now.

[Fideist345]

11-19-2003 @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299436#post299436)
Amazing Rando:



EDIT TO ADD (a second time): Over in the Comparative Religions section, Bill the Cat just gave me a few good links about the Pharisees as an actual historical group of people. Can you provide me with any sources that back up your claim that such a group did not exist?

I've posted over in the same section. Can you show me where it is that you think I said such a thing? Something tells me that you're seeing a quote of yours in an answer of mine and attributing it to me.

edited to add:

I think the post in question is here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=297960#post297960

And the language in question is in this portion, which I have bolded:



Rando:
Do you think those Christians who survived felt it nessesary to "revise" Mark in producing Matthew and Luke? Don't you think Mark also gives the impression that the Temple is still standing? What would be the advantage to the Christian communities to retroject the impression of a still standing Temple into Matthew and Luke? The Pharisees as an organization disbanded entirely with the destruction of the Temple, since it was their focus. Writing them into the story as an afterthought wouldn't seem to have much advantage to me. Sorry to be asking all these questions, but they're some of the reasons I have a hard time buying some theories that are flouted around.

Okay?

[Amazing Rando]

Hi Fideist! I'm back, had a really wonderful time too. If you ever can, take a listen to some of their songs! Probaly not you're kind fo music, but they bring a spirituality and humor to the table that many modern bands lack.


11-22-2003 @ 01:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308044#post308044)
Fideist345:

[quote] Let me make it clearer. I think to say every prehistoric culture might be correct. So might every primitive. Even every pre-modern might do it. But “culture” defines more than primitive or prehistoric culture. If you want to say the predecessors or patriarchs of current day cultures, I’d agree with that too. But to say that all cultures have some degree of religious belief sounds fishy to me.

Okay okay- not "culture" but how about "people"- as in "Every people that we've ever studied anthropologically has held some form of religious belief"?


Could you tell me how this statement differs in essence from what you quoted?

I think our disagreement here may be only a semantic one, right?


How is it bias to study those things that are observed to be within the realm of standard historical scrutiny? How could you use standard historiography to study a miracle claim?

Well, by closing yourself off to any possibility that what the gospels reflect is accurate with regards to miracles, you're denying even the possibility that they're trustworthy in this regard. It's also presumptuous to think you know the nature of reality like they do. What I'd suggest instead is assessing the reliability of the gospel authors, and if their reliability can be determined in other ares, they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt as regards miracles and the resurrection as well.


Yes, but the Jesus in question is a human type Jesus. That is because it is essentially futile (watch out for those Borg over there) to attempt to do any sort of actual research (in the standard sense) on a miracle claim.

There's a big difference between not studying the gospels' miracle stories because they're non-historical and declaring them to be patently false like the Borg group I mentioned above does. I'd take much less issue with the JS if they would set aside the miracle claims and say that they couldn't study them rather than color-coding those stories and quotes "Black" as they do in The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus. Maybe make a seperate color for the miraculous and prophetical accounts. That claims no judgment on them, if that's what their intention actually is, which I suspect it is not.


Yeah, but you see the method for determining that these texts were based on canonical gospels is the same method used to say that the parable of the vineyard/winepress, tenants/husbandman contains some text that is dependent on other sources.

Right. I don't have a problem with that in principle.


Edited to add:

I took a look at it, Rando. It's from Peter Kirby's ancient stuff. The comments are from a critical scholar active sometime in the 1920s.

Hmm. Should we tell Peter his links are 80 years out of date? :ahem:

I didn't realize it was Peter's site. I got there through www.gospels.net, which is a site done by one Andrew Bernhard.


reference to Harper's

Thanks for the PM! I agree about the Isaiah connection. It makes perfect sense that Jesus would draw upon the Hebrew scriptures to prove his identity, if he was, in fact, who he said he was. He did it quite frequently, and using Isaiah's vineyard as the setting for his parable is a very good idea because it draws connections from what his original audience believed and held to be sacred and what his new teachings and parables were saying.


Okay, but the question then becomes were they carrying copies of a gospel? Any gospel? If so, which one? More than one? I don’t think so. I’m pretty well convinced they were carrying copies of Didache or a similar writing.

They didn't need to be carrying copies of the gospel- since I've already made it clear I don't think the gospels were composed in Jerusalem.


RE: Peter's martyrdom in Rome

I think the above is tradition. Tradition is notoriously unreliable as history, but quite good in other areas such as apologetics.

Tradition is important because in some cases, it's the only evidence we have. Unless the tradition can be shown to be unreliable, or an alternate theory with more substantial documentation is proposed, I see no reason not to rely on this tradition as a source.


That’s the rub for me, Rando. Why not Jerusalem? Even if we go with the exodus in 66, there was still way more than enough time for an eyewitness to copy down what happened from 30-33. Why wait thirty-odd years to copy down the details in a different city? Be careful here, because the usual answer brings up the question of how long it was before Jesus’ followers would expect his return. And then one has to get into the niggling questions such as what “generation” means.

Why not Jerusalem? Because by around 40-45 or so, the 12 apostles had already begun to scatter. I'm estimating this date because of Paul's confrontation with Peter in Antioch (as recorded in Galatians) as well as a few others. As to why the details were not written down immediately, the answer has already been resolved to my satisfaction by others. The ANE peoples were heavily dependant on oral tradition as a means of passing on history, due primarily to the 95% or so illiteracy rate. They were very skilled in passing on stories from generation to generation with very few changes along the way. This is another reason that "tradition" is a reliable source- especially if the tradition can be determined to be relatively early.

Thanks so much for the Wright quote by the way. He sounds like a source I need to pick up at some point. As we can see from the NT, much of the early Christian eschatology was apocalyptic in nature.


Nope! :)

It was from a cartoon I grew up on not so many years ago- G.I. Joe!


Oh! No! Not at all! It’s not what you think it is. It is a statement about me before and after I took a very hard look at my beliefs, religion in general and what have you. At one point I was as skeptical as anyone you’ll ever come across. The skepticism was mainly due to my former personal reading of the Bible, way too much focus on reward in the afterlife and about a year and a half of trying to hold off some very well educated skeptics. This was when I began reading from all viewpoints. It was almost a lost cause. But a few years later a glimmer of belief appeared. I’m still working on it.

Okay, cool! :smile: I was a bit hastily defensive because so many skeptics here are of the impression that religion is for idiots! I went through a period of severe doubt like you did a few years ago when I first ran into modern biblical criticism, but I overcame the doubt and realized that the truly good scholarship more often affirms what I believe that negates it.

I'll get to the question about the Pharisees in the end of the post.


I feel that they (the gospels) are trustworthy, and true. I just don’t think they’re literal history.

I believe that to be the case with some of the more obscure OT writings- Job, early part of Genesis, maybe Jonah, etc. But the gospels are different! Take a look at what Luke says at the beginning of his gospel- how he spoke with eyewitnesses and the very first generation of believers in order to compose "an orderly account" of what happened. I don't think Luke had any intention of writing "kerygma". He wrote what he believed to be true according to what he had learned from the testimony of others.


But don’t you suspect that it is extremely unlikely that the pillars would allow anyone not physically connected with the Jerusalem community to write unsupervised “memoirs” or gospels?

The pillars, like James, Jesus's brother, probably stayed in Jerusalem. That's where tradition places his martyrdom. That seems reasonable- no reason to doubt that. You're assuming also that the earliest church practiced stringent control over the earliest believers. This was probably the case in the 200's and 300's, when those various heresies were being stamped out, but I think that after the Twelve met Paul and approved of his mission as recorded in Acts, shortly after that, they probably disbanded to go spread the gospel, so centralized authority disappeared for a while, allowing all sorts of strange ideas to pop up- just take a look at how much Paul has to write to correct errant believers!


Me too! But where we are most likely going to part company is whether or not later copyists decide to slightly alter what the original authors wrote. We will most likely also part company if an assertion is made that the various writers never placed in the mouth of Jesus, kerygma or other preaching that originated with someone besides Jesus.

You're right- this would probably be an issue we won't get anywhere on. Though I will point out something- with regards to the Old Testament, the Masoritic texts the OT is based on, written around 1000 or 1100 AD I think, have recently been corroborated to a very large degree by the OT texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This shows that from about AD 50 to AD 1000 or so, the OT manuscripts were copied faithfully, so that a relatively small amount of textual variations occured. Now this is not the New Testament, of course, but if 1000 years can produce so few textual variations, that attests a lot to the faithfulness of the ancient transcribers.


If you mean canonical pre-gospel literature, I agree. There is a very early creed, I think the earliest known, in 1 Cor. But guess what? Paul did not credit his source! How much of Paul is Paul and how much of Paul is other sources subsumed or appropriated? Quite a lot, I think.

Right- in 1 Corinthians, Paul is quoting a creed that the earliest Christian church there already believed and accepted. This particular creed and doctrine existed prior to Paul's letter!


I thought it was one set of passages. I thought I just read the others differently than you. The narrow gate, for instance is one that I read very differently from you and of course there was the imagery in Mark 9.

The narrow gate, Mark 9, the "weeping and gnashing of teeth", too. I guess that's all we had gone over. But I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few more- three in Matthew 25 alone: The parable of the 10 virgins, the parable of the talents, and the sheep and the goats. All of these, I believe, refer to a place or a state of seperation from God, and the agony that accompanies this state or place.


In my case it is a matter of priorities and an inability to accept a major contradiction. Jesus was above all compassionate. Any time I see Jesus as anything other than that, I wonder whether he is talking, or somebody has decided to speak based on how they were convinced Jesus would have said, were he there in person. I think a lot of times, the KJV’s rendering of Paul’s “through a glass darkly” comes into play. The inspiration is there, but it is colored by other issues that the writer cannot seem to disassociate himself from. Like it or not, the writers were human. And I believe that sometimes we have to read their personal concerns convictions and agendas back out of the text.

I understand your concern- we certainly do get a flavor of the writer's character, personality, and emphasis in our readings of the gospels. If you want compassion, I believe that Luke's portrayal of Jesus is the most compassionate of all four gospels. He himself was compassionate, but as an example he wanted us to emulate. Above all things, even above his compassion and humilty, Jesus points to God as the ultimate authority and source of life. He makes an example of deferring to God's wisdom, love, and judgment in everything. Jesus tells us that God the Father is compassionate too- he loves us most of all his creation (Luke 12:24).

The contradiction that you see comes in because you cannot fathom a Jesus who was ultimately compassionate talking about judgment and hell, right? I don't see that as a problem, because all of the judgment/hell passages are in relation to God the Father and his righteous judgment on those who reject his love, so freely offered.



Rando, I think we need to cut these posts down to a much more manageable size. How about you pick an issue or two, and just let the rest drop for now.

Ack! I think that I've failed miserably in brevity... You're a great conversationalist, and all of these issues we're talking about are so important and facinating, so it's really difficult, you know? I'll go back above and snip all of the comments about politics and current events. Maybe that will focus us a bit more? Keep our discussion for the time being on the Bible I guess. Feel free in your next post to snip anything you think is irrelevant or straying us off topic- just let me know where you snipped something so I'm not looking for it?


11-22-2003 @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308789#post308789)
Fideist345:

I've posted over in the same section. Can you show me where it is that you think I said such a thing? Something tells me that you're seeing a quote of yours in an answer of mine and attributing it to me.

edited to add:

I think the post in question is here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=297960#post297960

Okay?

What I was initially confused about was when you had first written about the Pharisees and the Sadducees with "Pharisees" in quotes.

That post is located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=283810#post283810), where you said
But is it out of the blue? Did not the "Pharisees" attempt to entrap him (22:15) followed by the Sadducees and then yet another Pharisee asking Jesus another question to trap him?

When I asked you about it, in your next response here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=287186#post287186), you said:
May I ask why you put Pharisees in quotes?
Lots of reasons. One is that the "Pharisee", may actually be the reader. Another is that as the gospels get older they go from being mildly dissaproving of Jews to an almost anti-Semitic tone. And many more not edvident in a surface reading.

This confused me a lot- I thought you meant that you didn't believe the Pharisees were an actual group of people. Did I misrepresent you? Can you see why I gathered that thought from what you wrote? If I did misrepresent you, I'm sorry about that.

I realize that I did make a mistake when I had said the Pharisees were in charge of the temple. I was confusing them with the Sadducees, who were the actual ones in charge of the temple. That was a mistake on my part- lapse of memory I guess.

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

Hi Fideist! I'm back, had a really wonderful time too. If you ever can, take a listen to some of their songs! Probaly not you're kind fo music, but they bring a spirituality and humor to the table that many modern bands lack.

Will do!


When I asked you about it, in your next response here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=287186#post287186), you said:[quote missing]

This confused me a lot- I thought you meant that you didn't believe the Pharisees were an actual group of people. Did I misrepresent you? Can you see why I gathered that thought from what you wrote[my emphasis]? If I did misrepresent you, I'm sorry about that.

The missing text is why I don't ordinarilly use this function. But at least I can add the smilies :huh:

I can see your confusion. But to put quotation marks around a single word is often a convention to show that just about any other "noun" (actually word, you see?) could be used in place of the one that is there. I wasn't attempting to imply that there were no such people as the Pharisees, sorry.


There's a big difference between not studying the gospels' miracle stories because they're non-historical and declaring them to be patently false like the Borg group I mentioned above does. I'd take much less issue with the JS if they would set aside the miracle claims and say that they couldn't study them rather than color-coding those stories and quotes "Black" as they do in The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus. Maybe make a seperate color for the miraculous and prophetical accounts. That claims no judgment on them, if that's what their intention actually is, which I suspect it is not.

Okay, I'll buy that.



Hmm. Should we tell Peter his links are 80 years out of date? :ahem:

:nc:


Tradition is important because in some cases, it's the only evidence we have. Unless the tradition can be shown to be unreliable, or an alternate theory with more substantial documentation is proposed, I see no reason not to rely on this tradition as a source.

Take my word for it, Tradition is not supportive of much of your position as a protestant Christian. :argue:


Ack! I think that I've failed miserably in brevity... You're a great conversationalist, and all of these issues we're talking about are so important and facinating, so it's really difficult, you know?

Thanks! You're no slouch as a conversationalist yourself! :thumb:


I'll go back above and snip all of the comments about politics and current events. Maybe that will focus us a bit more? Keep our discussion for the time being on the Bible I guess. Feel free in your next post to snip anything you think is irrelevant or straying us off topic- just let me know where you snipped something so I'm not looking for it?


I snipped almost all of it, because I'd like most to talk about this, which I posted in another forum and recieved only one reply:

“This they tell, and whether it happened so or not I do not know; but if you think about it, you can see that it is true.” This comes from appendix 2 of “Black Elk Speaks”, pg. 220 which you can read in context here:

http://www.blackelkspeaks.unl.edu/appendix2.html

Now, please don't be offended! :flaming: I am not trying to a facile comparison using gospel imagery and Black Elk's. What I'm trying to discover is how important is the message behind the obvious imagery? And can we use those skills to try to interpret the Bible? I say try, because once again, I read a poster say that she is no longer a Christian because the Bible makes no sense.

My mental answer to these people is always: Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible is not supposed to make sense? Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible is supposed to make you think? And has it ever occurred to you that even though it may not make immediate sense, it is nevertheless true? :whistle: IMO, there is very little to be said for trying to interpret scripture in a predominately literal fashion. So, have at it Rando!
:yipee:

[Amazing Rando]

Hey! I'm proud of you for busting out the smilies! :5solas:


Today @ 05:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312099#post312099)
Fideist345:

The missing text is why I don't ordinarilly use this function. But at least I can add the smilies :huh:

I can see your confusion. But to put quotation marks around a single word is often a convention to show that just about any other &quot;noun&quot; (actually word, you see?) could be used in place of the one that is there. I wasn't attempting to imply that there were no such people as the Pharisees, sorry.

Looking at it that way, your quote takes on an entirely different meaning than the one I was ascribing to it! Hehe. :cir:

Putting quotes around something is also commonly used to express skepticism or as a synonym for "so-called". You get my drift? For example, I could say "I went to see the terrible movie, but this "fine cinema" caused me to leave early".

Anyway, sorry for misinterpreting you yet again. :doh:

See below another example of how one might use the quotes to express skepticism:


RE: Jesus Seminar and their "authentic" words and actions of Jesus:

Okay, I'll buy that.

My issue is that they claim that the miraculous gospel events are incapable of being studied, then turn right around and claim them to be false (after having studied them!). See my objection?


Take my word for it, Tradition is not supportive of much of your position as a protestant Christian. :argue:

Obviously not all tradition is useful or true, but I believe it needs to be given the benefit of the doubt when there are no other reasonable alternatives, or when a lack of evidence to disprove it exists.

An example of clearly spurrious tradition is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where a young Jesus goes around abusing his powers. He zaps his playmates to death when he fights with them and generally uses his powers for his own amusement. This is spurrious because of the inconsistency it shows in Jesus's character from the canonical gospels, as well as because of the episode Luke records where we see a humble, reverential, and obedient boy Jesus.


I snipped almost all of it, because I'd like most to talk about this, which I posted in another forum and recieved only one reply:

“This they tell, and whether it happened so or not I do not know; but if you think about it, you can see that it is true.” This comes from appendix 2 of “Black Elk Speaks”, pg. 220 which you can read in context here:

http://www.blackelkspeaks.unl.edu/appendix2.html

I've never heard of Black Elf before, but he sounds like a fascinating guy!


Now, please don't be offended! :flaming: I am not trying to a facile comparison using gospel imagery and Black Elk's. What I'm trying to discover is how important is the message behind the obvious imagery? And can we use those skills to try to interpret the Bible? I say try, because once again, I read a poster say that she is no longer a Christian because the Bible makes no sense.

I know what you're trying to say. The literal truth of myths is not important, but the spiritual values are, right? I agree with you. I've already said- I look that way upon Job, the early chapters of Genesis, and perhaps Jonah.

But the gospels are different! They claim to be "orderly accounts" and records (Luke)- even based on the testimony of an important eyewitness (John)!

As regards the resurrection, the literal truth is critical. It determines our fate after our bodily deaths. If the resurrection is real, and actually happened, then it's everything the gospel writers and Paul believed it to be, and more. If it's not, then all our hope is in vain, and this life truly is all that exists. Can you see why the gospels are that different from Job? Nothing hinges on Job's conversations with Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, but everything hinges on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.


My mental answer to these people is always: Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible is not supposed to make sense? Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible is supposed to make you think? And has it ever occurred to you that even though it may not make immediate sense, it is nevertheless true? :whistle: IMO, there is very little to be said for trying to interpret scripture in a predominately literal fashion. So, have at it Rando!
:yipee:

Parts of the Bible still do not make sense to me, but the overwhelming majority of it does! Because of this, I have faith that those areas that do not make sense yet actually do, and I just do not yet know enough to make sense of them. I agree with your last sentance with the caveat- different parts of the Bible should be interpreted differently! Those that are poetry are poetry, those that are wisdom or myth are just that, and those that are history should be viewed as history. :deal: The difficulty is merely determining which is which.

I don't mind that you snipped the specifics, as our discussion was getting pretty enormous!

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

Hey! I'm proud of you for busting out the smilies! :5solas:

My pleasure! I don't know how long I can stand it though. :hrm:


Looking at it that way, your quote takes on an entirely different meaning than the one I was ascribing to it! Hehe. :cir:

Putting quotes around something is also commonly used to express skepticism or as a synonym for "so-called". You get my drift? For example, I could say "I went to see the terrible movie, but this "fine cinema" caused me to leave early".:

It is more commonly used that way now. And as I mentioned to Peter, affect is no longer mostly used to indicate "taking on the attributes of" and problematic is used, not always in conjunction, with "doubtful". :rock:



Obviously not all tradition is useful or true, but I believe it needs to be given the benefit of the doubt when there are no other reasonable alternatives, or when a lack of evidence to disprove it exists.

Tell ya what. Go find yourself an Orthodox or a traditional Catholic and see what their tradition makes of your status.


An example of clearly spurrious tradition is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where a young Jesus goes around abusing his powers. He zaps his playmates to death when he fights with them and generally uses his powers for his own amusement. This is spurrious because of the inconsistency it shows in Jesus's character from the canonical gospels, as well as because of the episode Luke records where we see a humble, reverential, and obedient boy Jesus.

I will not point out the irony, I will not... oops. :nc:


I've never heard of Black Elf before, but he sounds like a fascinating guy!

Very. What does the imagery say to you?


I know what you're trying to say. The literal truth of myths is not important, but the spiritual values are, right? I agree with you. I've already said- I look that way upon Job, the early chapters of Genesis, and perhaps Jonah.

There is a dicernable difference between sacred myth and theology.


But the gospels are different! They claim to be "orderly accounts" and records (Luke)- even based on the testimony of an important eyewitness (John)![/i]

One claims this status, true. But do you know why they constantly use the word savior no quote marks, notice? :ahem:


As regards the resurrection, the literal truth is critical. It determines our fate after our bodily deaths. If the resurrection is real, and actually happened, then it's everything the gospel writers and Paul believed it to be, and more. If it's not, then all our hope is in vain, and this life truly is all that exists. Can you see why the gospels are that different from Job? Nothing hinges on Job's conversations with Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, but everything hinges on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Nope. Not going there -- again! :flaming:


Parts of the Bible still do not make sense to me, but the overwhelming majority of it does! Because of this, I have faith that those areas that do not make sense yet actually do, and I just do not yet know enough to make sense of them.

That's called precursive faith.


I agree with your last sentance with the caveat- different parts of the Bible should be interpreted differently! Those that are poetry are poetry, those that are wisdom or myth are just that, and those that are history should be viewed as history. :deal: The difficulty is merely determining which is which.

So, get yourself some commentary. I have five on Genesis alone. And I wish I had the JPS commentary on the Torah. Rabbis are great people to learn from concerning Tanakh things.


I don't mind that you snipped the specifics, as our discussion was getting pretty enormous!

Hoo boy!!! I'll say! :teeth:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312171#post312171)
Fideist345:

Putting quotes around something is also commonly used to express skepticism or as a synonym for "so-called". You get my drift? For example, I could say "I went to see the terrible movie, but this "fine cinema" caused me to leave early"

It is more commonly used that way now. And as I mentioned to Peter, affect is no longer mostly used to indicate &quot;taking on the attributes of&quot; and problematic is used, not always in conjunction, with &quot;doubtful&quot;. :rock:

:nsm: If we keep using different language conventions, we'll never communicate effectively! I think there's no way around it- we just gotta keep on explaining ourselves I suppose.


Tell ya what. Go find yourself an Orthodox or a traditional Catholic and see what their tradition makes of your status.

Dude, I'm using Catholic and Orthodox tradition to make my arguments! What do you mean about "my status"? Catholics and Orthodox Christians recognize the fact that not all tradition is reliable. They only trust that tradition which they believe to be reliable. I don't think I'm doing anything different than they do.


I will not point out the irony, I will not... oops. :nc:

Yeah, I saw the double standard as soon as wrote it. That's why I tried to qualify it. What I'm trying to say is that some tradition is useless, some is quite helpful. It's your methodology that determines which is which. I'm guessing the irony you found was in how I pointed out the differences in Jesuses between Infancy Thomas and the canonical gospels, and how in our earlier discussion I criticized you for doing the same thing between a loving Jesus and the concept of hell. Is that it? If it is, I can certainly see where you're coming from.

I thought I explained it though- Jesus wasn't telling others he was going to "get them" for not believing in him. He was pointing to God as the source of justice. It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact.


Very. What does the imagery say to you?

Are you talking about the story of the origin of the peace pipe? The woman kills the man in the cloud "for being bad" and yet she presents them with the pipe from which they "shall get nothing but good". That, on the surface, seems almost as dichotomous as you seem to perceive Jesus in the gospels!


There is a dicernable difference between sacred myth and theology.

Okay, I'll give you that. Paul is clearly theology, while Job is sacred myth. Sound good? I wouldn't however, apply either label to describe the gospels (except the beginning of John). The rest of the gospel accounts are these guys telling it as they believed it happened. They do make some judgments about the events, but believed wholeheartedly that those judgments were justified through prophecy fulfillment, the miracles, Jesus's authoritative teachings, and finally the Resurrection.


One claims this status, true.

It claims the status, and we ought to believe that this was Luke's intent. He didn't say "Dear Theophilus, I'm going to tell you the sacred myth of Jesus, that I heard from asking a bunch of guys". Nope. :no:

He said
3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)

That clearly describes Luke's purpose in writing. He didn't want to pass on some heresay he heard from some boys down at the local wine shop, he didn't want to pass on the ancient oral myths of the culture, he wanted to convey for Theophilus and for future generations an "orderly account" of what many of his contemporaries considered the most important and monumental events in the history of the world.


Nope. Not going there -- again! :flaming:

Aww! But if we don't, we'll have so much less to talk about! :shifty: Again, for my worldview, the resurrection is the key. Death has been literally defeated- smashed to bits by the Redeemer!


That's called precursive faith.
Can you elaborate a bit? Like faith before understanding?


So, get yourself some commentary. I have five on Genesis alone. And I wish I had the JPS commentary on the Torah. Rabbis are great people to learn from concerning Tanakh things.

So what's stopping you from getting it? I own no commentaries of my own, though that's likely to change soon. I've just had several college courses on the Bible (at a secular state college) and read a bit. My reading into theories on Genesis from scholars (liberal and conservative as well as Jewish) have made me come to believe that, for example, YECism is a poor interpretation of the original intent of Genesis.

:whistle: :gim:

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

:nsm: If we keep using different language conventions, we'll never communicate effectively! I think there's no way around it- we just gotta keep on explaining ourselves I suppose.

Okay, then that’s what we’ll do! BTW, I'm retired, Rando. I hope you're not "flicking". That's a local term for playing hooky. :smile:



I thought I explained it though- Jesus wasn't telling others he was going to "get them" for not believing in him. He was pointing to God as the source of justice. It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact.

Rando, it defies logic and it defies the principle of compassion to hold good people responsible because they did not or could not believe. That is not the justice of a God, that is the retribution of a frustrated tyrant. :whip:


Are you talking about the story of the origin of the peace pipe? The woman kills the man in the cloud "for being bad" and yet she presents them with the pipe from which they "shall get nothing but good". That, on the surface, seems almost as dichotomous as you seem to perceive Jesus in the gospels!

Yes, the pipe story. It is less confusing if you have the whole book. But it's still a puzzle. And yet it describes more of those parable-type figures that you can regress back to the beginning of time, no? :violin:



Okay, I'll give you that. Paul is clearly theology, while Job is sacred myth. Sound good? I wouldn't however, apply either label to describe the gospels (except the beginning of John). The rest of the gospel accounts are these guys telling it as they believed it happened. They do make some judgments about the events, but believed wholeheartedly that those judgments were justified through prophecy fulfillment, the miracles, Jesus's authoritative teachings, and finally the Resurrection.




It claims the status, and we ought to believe that this was Luke's intent. He didn't say "Dear Theophilus, I'm going to tell you the sacred myth of Jesus, that I heard from asking a bunch of guys". Nope. :no:

He said (Luke 1:3-4)

That clearly describes Luke's purpose in writing. He didn't want to pass on some heresay he heard from some boys down at the local wine shop, he didn't want to pass on the ancient oral myths of the culture, he wanted to convey for Theophilus and for future generations an "orderly account" of what many of his contemporaries considered the most important and monumental events in the history of the world.


So says a plain or surface reading.



Aww! But if we don't, we'll have so much less to talk about! :shifty: Again, for my worldview, the resurrection is the key. Death has been literally defeated- smashed to bits by the Redeemer!


See my next answer. :innocent:



Can you elaborate a bit? Like faith before understanding?

Faith that runs ahead of the evidence. For instance, in this long ramble you just finished with, you use the term resurrection. Paul uses the term Risen. Which is it? It doesn't matter to me. Next spring when the signs appear saying: He is Risen! I'll just nod. I don't need to know, or claim to know, all that idea entails and especially the mechanics of just how such a thing could occur. I don't need that. I'm sorry you do.



So what's stopping you from getting it?

A conservative <---- that's a formal distinction Jewish guy on another board that said I should wait 'till I can find a used one. :smile:



I own no commentaries of my own, though that's likely to change soon. I've just had several college courses on the Bible (at a secular state college) and read a bit. My reading into theories on Genesis from scholars (liberal and conservative as well as Jewish) have made me come to believe that, for example, YECism is a poor interpretation of the original intent of Genesis.

:whistle: :gim:

Uh oh! :haha: Now you've done it!

Anyway, I'd borrow what you can for the time being. And like my Jewish friend suggested, commentaries are always best when served used. :popcorn:

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312285#post312285)
Fideist345:

[quote]Okay, then that’s what we’ll do! BTW, I'm retired, Rando. I hope you're not &quot;flicking&quot;. That's a local term for playing hooky. :smile:

Nah, just goofing off a bit at work!


Rando, it defies logic and it defies the principle of compassion to hold good people responsible because they did not or could not believe. That is not the justice of a God, that is the retribution of a frustrated tyrant. :whip:

This is one we've been around the horn on many times in this forum. What Christianity says is that apart from God, there are no good people. King David agreed- he had a concept of this even before Jesus:


All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. - Psalm 14:3

That's the thing- there are no good people. Compared to God's goodness, everything else falls flat.


Yes, the pipe story. It is less confusing if you have the whole book. But it's still a puzzle. And yet it describes more of those parable-type figures that you can regress back to the beginning of time, no? :violin:

Yeah- in reading it, I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. What thoughts do you have on the story?


So says a plain or surface reading.

Ug! :doh:


Faith that runs ahead of the evidence. For instance, in this long ramble you just finished with, you use the term resurrection. Paul uses the term Risen. Which is it? It doesn't matter to me. Next spring when the signs appear saying: He is Risen! I'll just nod. I don't need to know, or claim to know, all that idea entails and especially the mechanics of just how such a thing could occur. I don't need that. I'm sorry you do.

Hey now, that's uncalled for. If that's how you feel about me, that's fine, but you really ought not to tell others you feel "sorry" for them. That's like me telling you that I'm sorry you may not experience the joys of heaven and the presence of the Creator. See? A bit condescending. I get it enough from Jim Eisele and other skeptics who are "sorry" that I'm "wasting my life on a lie," and I wasn't expecting to hear it from you.

As to the distinction between risen and resurrection, I don't see much difference. All four gospels are pretty clear what they mean when they portray Jesus as once dead, yet now living.


A conservative &lt;---- that's a formal distinction Jewish guy on another board that said I should wait 'till I can find a used one. :smile:

Why is this? So you can get it for cheap? Or do you want one that has been heavily used and loved, with the previous owner's thoughts scribbled in the margins? hehe. I'd bet a bit of both!

[Fideist345]

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315039#post315039)
Amazing Rando:


Hey now, that's uncalled for. If that's how you feel about me, that's fine, but you really ought not to tell others you feel &quot;sorry&quot; for them. That's like me telling you that I'm sorry you may not experience the joys of heaven and the presence of the Creator. See? A bit condescending. I get it enough from Jim Eisele and other skeptics who are &quot;sorry&quot; that I'm &quot;wasting my life on a lie,&quot; and I wasn't expecting to hear it from you.



At the risk of providing even more unintended offense, consider the conversation dropped.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 01:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315048#post315048)
Fideist345:



At the risk of providing even more unintended offense, consider the conversation dropped.

Okay. I'll see you around again sometime!

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

Okay. I'll see you around again sometime!

Sure! See you around. :)

[Amazing Rando]

Hey everybody! Since Jim Eisele seems to have dropped out of this thread and it seems to have run its course, what say we turn this one into the Anti-Spam thread! A counterpart to the spam threads of the dormitory, this could be used for accumulating Anti-Spam points! What do ya'll think?

Or is that an inappropriate use of this thread?

[hospitaller]

I reckon Jim's gone off to set up his "www.answeringthequran.org" website, liberal and balanced theorist on Theism that he is. I look forward eagerly to his "Any reasons to be a Muslim?" thread...

[Jim E.]

11-26-2003 @ 09:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317662#post317662)
hospitaller:

I reckon Jim's gone off to set up his &quot;www.answeringthequran.org&quot; website, liberal and balanced theorist on Theism that he is. I look forward eagerly to his &quot;Any reasons to be a Muslim?&quot; thread...

Christianity is the hope of the uneducated, at best. At worst, it is the sinister desire to control and/or eradicate others. In the U.S. Islam is not nearly as influential as Christianity.

Jim

[hospitaller]

We don't all live in the U.S.!

Welcome to the global village, broaden your horizons!

[Socrates]

04-01-2003 @ 01:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49976#post49976)
Socrates:

AtheistArchon:Additionally, I don't see irriducible complexity within cellular structures, myself. Many of the examples he used in &quot;Darwin's Black Box&quot; have since been debunked, including the rotary &quot;wheel&quot; of the base of the flagellum, as well as the mousetrap.The denunciations of the ID flagellum argument have themselves been debunked, including by one of the world's leading researcher into the flagellum Dr Scott Minnich -- see www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#complex

Also, I have yet to see an evolutionary explanation for the far tinier motor of the enzyme F1-ATPase, a subunit of a larger enzyme, ATP synthase -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3799.asp

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 01:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348000#post348000)
Socrates:

AtheistArchon:Additionally, I don't see irriducible complexity within cellular structures, myself. Many of the examples he used in &amp;quot;Darwin's Black Box&amp;quot; have since been debunked, including the rotary &amp;quot;wheel&amp;quot; of the base of the flagellum, as well as the mousetrap.The denunciations of the ID flagellum argument have themselves been debunked, including by one of the world's leading researcher into the flagellum Dr Scott Minnich -- see www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#complex

Also, I have yet to see an evolutionary explanation for the far tinier motor of the enzyme F1-ATPase, a subunit of a larger enzyme, ATP synthase -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3799.asp

Wow! responding to a post 8 months old! A new record for thread resurrection? :thumb:

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

Wow! responding to a post 8 months old! A new record for thread resurrection? :thumb:

I think it was the system yesterday, Rando. The post I responded to was at the top of the queue, and I didn't bother looking at the date. Are we getting too dependent on machines and technology? :noid:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 02:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348620#post348620)
Fideist345:



I think it was the system yesterday, Rando. The post I responded to was at the top of the queue, and I didn't bother looking at the date. Are we getting too dependent on machines and technology? :noid:

Could be! I was just noticing the post Socrates had quoted was from April 1st. Struck me as kinda funny.

[Tophet]

Christianity is the hope of the uneducated, at best.

Were you aware that many pioneers of modern science were motivated by God?

1. John Philoponus (late sixth century) Aristotle's Early Christian Critic
2. Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1096-1141) Theologian of Science
3. Robert Grosseteste (c. 1168-1253) Reform-Minded Bishop-Scientist
4. Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) Doctor Mirabiles
5. Dietrich von Frieberg (c. 1250-c. 1310) The Priest Who Solved the Mystery of the Rainbow
6. Thomas Bradwardine (c. 1290-1349) Student of Motion
7. Nicole Oresme (c. 1320-1382) Inventor of Scientific Graphing Techniques
8. Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) Grappler with Infinity
9. Georgias Agricola (1494-1555) Founder of metallurgy
10. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Discoverer of the Laws of Planetary Motion
11. Johannes Baptistavan Helmont (1579-1644) Founder of Pneumatic Chemistry and Chemical Physiology
12. Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) Discoverer of the Diffraction of Light
13. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Mathematical Prodigy and Universal Genius
14. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) Founder of Modem Chemistry
15. John Ray (1627-1705) Cataloger of British Flora and Fauna
16. Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) Newton's Teacher
17. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) Discoverer of Bacteria
18. Niels Steno (1638-1686) Founder of Geology
19. James Bradley (1693-1762) Discoverer of the Aberration of Starlight
20. Ewald Georg von Kleist (c. 1700-1748) Inventor of the Leyden Jar
21. Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) Classifier of all Living Things
22. Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) The Prolific Mathematician
23. John Dalton (1766-1844) Founder of Modem Atomic Theory
24. Thomas Young (1773-1829) First to Conduct a Double-Slit Experiment with Light
25. David Brewster (1781-1868) Researcher of Polarized Light
26. William Buckland (1784-1856) Geologist of the Noahic Flood
27. Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) Geologist of the Cambrian
28. Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827) The Physicist of Light Waves
29. Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) Soulwinning Mathematician
30. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Giant of Electrical Research
31. John Frederick William Herschel (1792-1871) Cataloger of the Southern Skies
32. Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873) Pathfinder of the Seas
33. Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) Popular Naturalist
34. Asa Gray (1810-1888) Influential American Botanist
35. James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) Systematizer of Mineralogy
36. George Boole (1815-1864) Discoverer of Pure Mathematics
37. James Prescott Joule (1818-1889) Originator of Joule's Law
38. John Couch Adams (1819-1892) Codiscoverer of Neptune
39. George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) Theorist for Fluorescence
40. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Pioneer in Genetics
41. William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) Physicist of Thermodynamics
42. Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) The Non-Euclidean Geometer Behind Relativity Theory
43. James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Father of Modem Physics
44. Edward William Morley (1838-1923) Michelson's Partner in Measuring the Speed of Light
45. Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem (1861-1916) The Physicist Who Recovered the Science of the Middle Ages
46. Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) The Priest Who Showed Us the Universe Is Expanding
47. George Washington Carver (c. 1864-1943) Pioneer in Chemurgy
48. Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944) The Astronomer Who Ruled Stellar Theory

Documented in Scientists of Faith by Daniel Graves.

[Jim E.]

In response to the last post...

Well, OK. My statement was a generalization. I do, however,
feel it is accurate.

Look at Christianity and where it flourishes. It flourishes
where people are uneducated/undereducated. Or perhaps where
people don't have the relevant education.

Christians still believe the earth is 6,000 years old. They
still believe Adam & Eve really existed, although it is simple
to expose this story as a myth. They are anti-evolution.
They are unaware of the content of their holy book. They
still believe their holy book has no errors.

False prophecies abound in the Bible. Romans burned or
banned anti-Christian material.

Let's face it. Christians remain Christians through ignorance
which is supported by church leadership.

Atheists dominate open, free forums. It wasn't so long ago that
Catholic mass was still spoken in Latin.

Christianity grew by force, and during a time when written
communication was dependent upon scribes.

The whole thing just smacks of ignorance. Although, sadly,
some Christians seem to just disregard truth because they have
some sort of personal agenda (money, power, control, etc.)

Jim

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 08:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349908#post349908)
Jim Eisele:

In response to the last post...

Well, OK. My statement was a generalization. I do, however,
feel it is accurate.

Look at Christianity and where it flourishes. It flourishes
where people are uneducated/undereducated. Or perhaps where
people don't have the relevant education.

Jim, what are you talking about? Where does Christianity flourish? It flourishes most in the west- where people are the most educated. The general population of the West is better educated than the general population of, say Africa.

[/quote]Christians still believe the earth is 6,000 years old.[/quote]
Not all Christians. heck- not even mostChristians.


They
still believe Adam &amp; Eve really existed, although it is simple
to expose this story as a myth They are anti-evolution.

Again- not all Christians


They are unaware of the content of their holy book.
That's absurd. What the heck do you think we're all doing here? Talking sports?

[/quote]They
still believe their holy book has no errors.[/quote]

Find a few and prove them. Again- not all Christians do.


False prophecies abound in the Bible.

Any examples, or should we just take your word for it?


Romans burned or
banned anti-Christian material.

Yet they also killed thousands of Christians for amusement.


Let's face it. Christians remain Christians through ignorance
which is supported by church leadership.

Let's face it, Jim is ignorant of what Christians really believe, even though he says he was one once.


Atheists dominate open, free forums.

I'm glad to see you think you're "dominating" us with your dazzling ignorance of Christianity and oh so hasty generalizations. :poke: The only weapon of dominance you have is the ignore function!


It wasn't so long ago that
Catholic mass was still spoken in Latin.

Now how is this important? Who is it important to?


Christianity grew by force, and during a time when written
communication was dependent upon scribes.

Yet Christianity survived through humility and selflessness in the hearts of real believers.


The whole thing just smacks of ignorance. Although, sadly,
some Christians seem to just disregard truth because they have
some sort of personal agenda (money, power, control, etc.)

Jim

Just what are we ignorant of, oh wise Jim? Enlighten us! :bow:

[Jim E.]

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349967#post349967)
Amazing Rando:
Find a few and prove them.
<snip rest>

Maybe I'll reply to your post in detail. Maybe I won't. We've fruitlessly talked before. But this little statement is far too typical of the attitude I see from Christians here.

Why not say "do you have an example?" Yes, you're defensive because your faith is being directly challenged. But please try to get beyond these emotional outbursts. Christians here constantly demand proof. Please don't forget - you are the ones who believe in an invisible deity.

Jim

[Faramir]

Today @ 06:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349999#post349999)
Jim Eisele:


Maybe I'll reply to your post in detail. Maybe I won't. We've fruitlessly talked before. But this little statement is far too typical of the attitude I see from Christians here.

Why not say &quot;do you have an example?&quot; Yes, you're defensive because your faith is being directly challenged. But please try to get beyond these emotional outbursts. Christians here constantly demand proof. Please don't forget - you are the ones who believe in an invisible deity.

Jim

Do you have an example?

[Jim E.]

Yesterday @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350002#post350002)
Faramir:



Do you have an example?

Thanks, Faramir.

This may not be what you want to hear, but it comes to mind. My experience in forums has actually shown Christians to be more open-minded than they seemed to be several months back.

In a sense, this is all that I could hope for. After all, Christianity is a question of conscience. It's not good to pressure people to deconvert, any more than it is good to pressure folks into becoming Christians. People need to be able to make educated judgments based on the facts/argumentation at hand. So forums like this (with a mix of Christians and atheists) are very useful, for both sides. It is very helpful for both sides to understand
each other. And it would seem that the Christian who understands an atheist is far ahead of your average Christian. And probably a lot closer to the teachings of Jesus (loving your "enemy" and all that).

My ongoing example of Bible error is that the Bible teaches the earth is 6,000 years old. We know this is false, although there are Christian holdouts. Christians in forums tend to be more knowledgeable. The great majority have rejected YEC. But they are still not ready to admit errors in their Bible. Especially if these errors are very important to the basis of their faith. So I guess that I can understand why they get defensive and resort to rationalizing.

I hate to waste time on nit-pick errors. And let's not forget. I would like Christianity to be true. I'd sign up for eternal bliss in a heartbeat. But if it is false, it is an awful waste of life. You have many restrictions that an unbeliever doesn't have.

For now, I stick to the big Bible error that the Bible teaches the earth is 6,000 years old. Conversation generally deteriorates here. This is just too much ground for many Christians to surrender. Many Christians have surrendered it, however, and treat Genesis as poetry.

Jim

[Fideist345]

Today @ 09:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350302#post350302)
Jim Eisele:

Many Christians have surrendered it, however, and treat Genesis as poetry.


As Bill Moyers and many other commentators have shown, there are many ways of looking at or understanding Genesis. I would hazard a guess that those who actually believe the creation stories are literal history, are in what amounts to, a small vociferous minority.

[LGM]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350314#post350314)
Fideist345:
As Bill Moyers and many other commentators have shown, there are many ways of looking at or understanding Genesis. I would hazard a guess that those who actually believe the creation stories are literal history, are in what amounts to, a small vociferous minority.

...this may be in the general population, but this website's most vociferous and malevolent proponent of literal Genesis belief, also has the most "pearls" as given to him by the other members here....

What does that tell you?

LGM
...you do the math...I'm guessing if Bill Moyers posted here, his pearl count would be paltry at best...

[Jim E.]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350314#post350314)
Fideist345:



As Bill Moyers and many other commentators have shown, there are many ways of looking at or understanding Genesis. I would hazard a guess that those who actually believe the creation stories are literal history, are in what amounts to, a small vociferous minority.

Some info on numbers of young earth creationists. Note:
the 10,000 years is a concession some creationists have made
to powerful scientific evidence. It is rationalization of
Biblical text which indicates the earth is 6,000 years old.


From http://www.rae.org/polls.html

According to a 1993 Gallup poll, 47% of the American public adopted the young earth creationist view that humans were created by God around 10,000 years ago. Another 35% were theistic evolutionists, and only 11% believe the universe has evolved naturally. This makes evolutionists who try to portray young-earth creationists as a small fringe group look a bit silly.

Especially when you realize that young-earth creationism is actually growing: a similar Gallup poll in 1982 showed only 44% believed in a young, created earth. Since scientific creationism only dates to the early 1960's, belief in a special creation was probably even less prevalent prior to 1982.

From http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/3557/survey1.html

Citing Gallup and other public-opinion polls since the early 1980s, Bishop said about 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man ''pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.''

Another 40 percent believe that man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life but that God guided this process - what Bishop calls ''theistic evolution.''

And 10 percent of Americans hold the Darwinist evolution position that man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life but that God had no part in the process.

and

By comparison, only 7 percent of those surveyed in Great Britain said they take the biblical creation account of Genesis 1 literally, he said.. Respondents in Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands all ranked significantly lower than the United States in biblical literalism.

''The scientific worldview has thus far failed to complete Darwin's revolution in the land of "One Nation Under God,'' Bishop wrote in aa summary of his findings.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,954018,00.html

Is creationism more popular in the US?
A recent survey by Scientific American revealed that... 45% of Americans... believe God created life some time in the past 10,000 years, despite research that has established the universe as 13bn years old and that [humans] are descended from ape-like ancestors.
From the Observer, March 17 2002

Jim

[Fideist345]

Today @ 11:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350384#post350384)
Jim Eisele:

By comparison, only 7 percent of those surveyed in Great Britain said they take the biblical creation account of Genesis 1 literally, he said.. Respondents in Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands all ranked significantly lower than the United States in biblical literalism.

''The scientific worldview has thus far failed to complete Darwin's revolution in the land of "One Nation Under God,'' Bishop wrote in aa summary of his findings.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/...,954018,00.html

Is creationism more popular in the US?
A recent survey by Scientific American revealed that... 45% of Americans... believe God created life some time in the past 10,000 years, despite research that has established the universe as 13bn years old and that [humans] are descended from ape-like ancestors.



I looked around some, and these numbers are pretty consistent. I find it downright scary. The numbers may in part, be due to so many main line protestants just becoming appathetic, but any number approaching 50% says quite a bit about how many people in the USA want to believe that didactic poetry is actual history.

Frankly, I'm shocked. It appears common sense isn't very common after all.

[Amazing Rando]

Hi Jim, I'm sorry about that. I posted out of a bit of anger, and I regret being emotional like that. Sin of pride, you know? :blush: :doh: But it's good to see you're no longer ignoring me! Thanks for that little honor anyhow. Perhaps we can talk again. Again, please accept my apologies.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 11:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350350#post350350)
LakeGeorgeMan:



...this may be in the general population, but this website's most vociferous and malevolent proponent of literal Genesis belief, also has the most &quot;pearls&quot; as given to him by the other members here....

What does that tell you?

LGM
...you do the math...I'm guessing if Bill Moyers posted here, his pearl count would be paltry at best...

Sorry, LGM, I just saw this. No doubt you're correct about Moyers! And Armstrong and the rest of the panel that participated in the discussion on PBS. I have Armstrong's interpretation of Genesis and I'd say my own view is close to hers than any other I've read including Speiser (Anchor Bible Commentary).

As for what the pearls thing says, I'm not sure. Chsalvia for instance seems to have quite a few, but it does seem if the more conservative and unwilling to change a person is, the more pearls. Still, that's anecdotal. Think we ought to do a study and see if our hypothesis pans out? :)

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:


I'm glad to see you think you're "dominating" us with your dazzling ignorance of Christianity and oh so hasty generalizations. :poke: The only weapon of dominance you have is the ignore function!



Sorry to say I'm afraid Jim's comment is more accurate than some would care to think. In every forum I've participated in, the conservative Christians have eventually had to resort to little more than Ad Absurdum fallacy in response to criticism of their position.

The people I've seen who have the most success with skeptics are conservative (the actual name of the movement) Jews and liberal Christians. Muslims, Hindus and others are also successful at defending their respective positions. But that may be due as much to a high learning curve as anything else. In matters concerning the Bible, skeptics are generally well informed.

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

I would tend to agree, and if you'll note in the post just above yours, I appologized to Jim for getting emotional. Still, one can't claim that Jim, who says that he doesn't spend much time reading (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=256599#post256599) is "well informed."

I’ll tell you what I’ve personally found on that subject. Keep in mind that this is all personal to me and is therefore completely anecdotal.

Many Evangelical Christians (some also term themselves Born Again, Charismatic, Non-denominational and/or Fundamentalist) come to Christianity while carrying a large burden. More often than not, that burden is ant-social behavior in one form or another (drinking/drugs, flunked out of school, dysfunctional family or family member, etc.). Almost all have some sort of ‘testimony’ concerning their past sinful lives and how turning Christian has changed them for the better.

Most of the above people are kind of myopic in their faith. They have no idea how offensive it is for others to be assaulted by a fervent conservative Christian who is ‘evangelizing’, this despite any number of books having been written by their targets of opportunity. The most famous of which is probably “Stealing Jesus” by Bruce Bawer. In fact, many of these former Christians who are now atheists still tend towards evangelism. If memory serves, there used to be a piece on II by Dan Barker on how to do just that.

The majority of atheists I’ve come into contact with are originally from some conservative or other modern (meaning has come into existence in the last couple hundred years, usually in north America) Christian offshoot such as LDS, SDA or JW.

Both of the above groups are almost eerie in the way they read the Bible. But what is really astonishing is that they are often completely unaware of alternatives. For them, there is no other focus than the Bible. They are almost completely unaware of patristic writing and the various movements in the history of Christianity. I’ve met very few atheists who began in a Catholic, Orthodox or mainline Protestant church. Most of these people tend to move to liberal Christianity, UU or some Eastern religion/philosophy if they move at all. This can be said of many of the formerly Jewish people I’ve run into as well. Most formerly Jewish people I’ve known choose Buddhism.

So, it is not surprising to me when either a conservative Christian or an atheist wants to read the Bible very literally and assumes everyone else should too. Nor is it surprising to me when their reading list is comprised of mostly those titles and publishers that agree with their positions. What is almost guaranteed, IMX, is that the religious reading list will be comparatively short. So, in my experience, the vast majority of liberal Christians have read quite a lot on religion; both Christianity and the other world religions. Whereas the vast majority of conservative Christians and atheists I’ve run into have read widely on philosophy.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that becoming ‘well informed’ concerning literal bible reading may not be, as you seem to be indicating, saying a great deal. :smile:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351429#post351429)
Fideist345:

Many Evangelical Christians (some also term themselves Born Again, Charismatic, Non-denominational and/or Fundamentalist) come to Christianity while carrying a large burden. More often than not, that burden is ant-social behavior in one form or another (drinking/drugs, flunked out of school, dysfunctional family or family member, etc.). Almost all have some sort of ‘testimony’ concerning their past sinful lives and how turning Christian has changed them for the better.

Would you expect any less considering the claims of redemption that Christianity makes?


Most of the above people are kind of myopic in their faith. They have no idea how offensive it is for others to be assaulted by a fervent conservative Christian who is ‘evangelizing’, this despite any number of books having been written by their targets of opportunity. The most famous of which is probably “Stealing Jesus” by Bruce Bawer. In fact, many of these former Christians who are now atheists still tend towards evangelism. If memory serves, there used to be a piece on II by Dan Barker on how to do just that.

I think that the majority of conservative Christians are aware of the offensiveness of the message they're sharing, but are also convinced that it's a message that needs to be spread. That's a good observation you make that former evangelical Christians who have renounced the faith still continue in that mentality.


The majority of atheists I’ve come into contact with are originally from some conservative or other modern (meaning has come into existence in the last couple hundred years, usually in north America) Christian offshoot such as LDS, SDA or JW.

Both of the above groups are almost eerie in the way they read the Bible. But what is really astonishing is that they are often completely unaware of alternatives. For them, there is no other focus than the Bible. They are almost completely unaware of patristic writing and the various movements in the history of Christianity. I’ve met very few atheists who began in a Catholic, Orthodox or mainline Protestant church. Most of these people tend to move to liberal Christianity, UU or some Eastern religion/philosophy if they move at all. This can be said of many of the formerly Jewish people I’ve run into as well. Most formerly Jewish people I’ve known choose Buddhism.

So, it is not surprising to me when either a conservative Christian or an atheist wants to read the Bible very literally and assumes everyone else should too. Nor is it surprising to me when their reading list is comprised of mostly those titles and publishers that agree with their positions. What is almost guaranteed, IMX, is that the religious reading list will be comparatively short. So, in my experience, the vast majority of liberal Christians have read quite a lot on religion; both Christianity and the other world religions. Whereas the vast majority of conservative Christians and atheists I’ve run into have read widely on philosophy.

Well, I grew up in a Methodist church- strictly mainline as far as I know. I'd consider myself a "moderate" Christian- perhaps somewhere between the evalgelical mold and the liberal. Based on our previous correspondences, would you agree to that designation for me?

Also- why do you draw a distinction between religion and philosophy? Whare are the differences between the two that you perceive?


So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that becoming ‘well informed’ concerning literal bible reading may not be, as you seem to be indicating, saying a great deal. :smile:

I deleted that post before you responded, sorry bout that. Check your PM's!

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

Well, I grew up in a Methodist church- strictly mainline as far as I know. I'd consider myself a "moderate" Christian- perhaps somewhere between the evalgelical mold and the liberal. Based on our previous correspondences, would you agree to that designation for me?

Absolutely!


Also- why do you draw a distinction between religion and philosophy? Whare are the differences between the two that you perceive?

One is primarily based on inductive logic and is in the realm of mythos. The other on deductive logic that dwells in the realm of logos.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351446#post351446)
Fideist345:

One is primarily based on inductive logic and is in the realm of mythos. The other on deductive logic that dwells in the realm of logos.

Ah, that makes a good deal of sense. Good distinction.

Many Christians tend to approach the gospel events like detectives- trying to figure out what we can know for certain, and what we can't know and has to be believed by faith.

[Fideist345]

Amazing Rando:

Ah, that makes a good deal of sense. Good distinction.

Many Christians tend to approach the gospel events like detectives- trying to figure out what we can know for certain, and what we can't know and has to be believed by faith.

Yeah, but too many want to eschew faith and be certain by employing discursive means. I've found that it just doesn't work that way. :smile:

[rusty]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.orgDear Jim,
If your question is sincere, I'd be willing to give it a shot.
First, let me say unequivically that there are NO reasons for being a Christian. Incorporation into the Body of Christ is not something that takes place because of reasons (at least not for the paltry reasons of a sinful man like myself). Being a Christian is something that happens as an act of grace and favor on the part of God; it is the result of God's actions and, if you will, God's "reasons." Though I hasten to add that on this side of Heaven, God's reasons are often impossible for us to comprehend.
Second, a lot of people are referring to Pascal's Wager. The Wager is an amusing parlor game at best (as is so much of modern philosophy). Pascal did say something though that has a great deal of bearing on your question: Le couer a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point (The heart has its reasons about which Reason knows nothing).Being a Christian is literally not a reason-able proposition. Being a Christian is an expression of love (an action of the heart not the brain): love of God the Father for all people; the action of God's love in the life, death, resurrection, and return of his Son, Jesus Christ; the love of God the Holy Spirit working in power in the world today; and even (to the extent that God's grace guides us) through the love of sinful men in acts of kindness and charity which they do for others.
Third, the atheist in the foxhole may have a very good "reason" for crying out to God,
but if he does not have a true change of heart, if he does not repent (that is, turn from his former way of living), and if he does not take the RISK of opening himself to God's working in his life, then once the battle is over he will be no better off than he was before. So, while there may be many very good reasons for beginning to look for God or reasons for reaching out to God, reasons are not going to carry you beyond the stepping off point. Reasons are not going to lead to your becoming a Christian. (Interestingly, once one has become a Christian, he can see that that ANYTHING that happens can provide a sufficient reason to begin looking for God or turning toward God. God can use anything that happens to us to reach us. "The letter I was expecting came. Thank God!" -- "The letter I was expecting didn't come. God, where can it be?"
-- "The letter was dropped by the postman and splattered with mud. Why, God?" EVERY moment of EVERY day presents the opportunity for us to draw closer to God and for Him to work in our lives.)
Fourth, we have a very important BUT, which also brings us to your observation about Hell. The BUT is that God will not do anything to interfere with our free will.
So while He reaches out to us at every moment of every day, He does not grab a hold of us and force us to turn towards Him. He is always there, but He is always a gentleman. To our dying day (and BEYOND our dying day!), the choice is ours. God is complete and perfect love. All are free to choose not to be with Him. Those who choose not to be with God at death and beyond are those who are in the place called Hell, the place where God IS NOT at all, the place where there is NO love. (It is perhaps difficult for someone who is just beginning to deal with these questions to realize that the doctrine of Hell is a great mercy and kindness to us, but it is.)
Fifth, the Church teaches that we cannot know that anyone who has lived on earth is in fact in Hell. Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? We have no idea. The scriptures clearly teach that the Devil and all his demons (one third of the heavenly host that rebelled against God), the Anti-Christ, and the Beast (who may be on earth now or may be yet to come) will be consigned to the Lake of Fire for eternal torment (this is usually seen as Hell); but these are the only named "persons" that we know for sure are going to end up there. (It is certainly not too late for anyone reading this post to turn to God in prayer and avoid such a fate!)
Sixth, re evolution. The fact that we have free will disproves evolution which is entirely deterministic. May I suggest that you look at some of Dembski's books on intelligent design. They will give you a much more thorough grounding in the science of evolution and its proofs. For the difficulties involved in publicizing evolutionary teachings and their most outstanding examples in the paleontological record, I cannot recommend highly enough "Icons of Evolution."
Last, forgive me if I violate the ettiquette of this list, but since I have gone on at such great length, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at
<Greg RussellSmith@Hotmail.com>. God bless and I hope you find your answers!

[Jim E.]

Hello Rusty,

First and foremost, let me say that I want Christianity to be true.
In that regard, you have a captive audience.

I will also say that if Christianity is false there are consequences.

You have touched upon multiple issues, all of which “deserve” responses.
I’ll freely admit that I don’t have the time/inclination to address all of them.
I’ve heard them before and seen them discussed.

But I’m always willing to take a stab at what seems to be your “lead” point.
It will only be a stab, and feel free to re-direct me.


Being a Christian is something that happens as an act of grace and favor on the part of God;

You wrote “Being a Christian is something that happens as an act of grace and favor on the part of God”

Here are traits of God that I think non-Christians and Christians agree upon:

*Invisible.
*Doesn’t speak to us (as in directly by words).
*Won’t perform miracles on demand in order to show himself.

So of course, believing is a matter of faith, not knowledge. Evidence is required to assess the claims of Christianity.

Hopefully you aren’t giving too much of your money to the church. I don’t know how the church’s sexual restrictions affect you.

Christianity is in decline. Americans are holding out while Europeans have bailed out.

I laugh at the Adam and Eve story, which I have spent a ton of time researching.
You don’t have a prayer of defending that, and I’d be happy to quickly change your
mind if you want to discuss the matter here.

Of course, there are Christians who treat Genesis as myth. I agree with their assesment of Genesis. Generally I’m not too interested in discussing Christianity with them. If Genesis isn’t true, at best they worship a liar. They may disagree, but that’s how I see it. I’m not interested.

Best of luck to you. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Jim

[Amazing Rando]

I love this thread! Just when you think it's gone for good, BOOM! It's baaaaack! :rofl:

[ChrisChillin]

Christianity is in decline.

Only if you're counting numbers in the western world...

There, I've posted in this thread!! I feel like I've entered a higher realm of TWeb...it's a very Gnostic vibe...

[Xavier]

Greetings again Thread Fans... :teeth:


Hello Rusty,

First and foremost, let me say that I want Christianity to be true.
In that regard, you have a captive audience.
Yeah... I know Christianity to be true. Of course, alot of the reasons why go back to rather subjective experiences on my half, but I think that the objective ones are still strong.


I will also say that if Christianity is false there are consequences.
Not for me... Read my Sig Line.


You have touched upon multiple issues, all of which “deserve” responses.
I’ll freely admit that I don’t have the time/inclination to address all of them.
I’ve heard them before and seen them discussed.
Bummer... :wink:


But I’m always willing to take a stab at what seems to be your “lead” point.
It will only be a stab, and feel free to re-direct me.
Hooray... He's addressing a point... :woohoo:


Here are traits of God that I think non-Christians and Christians agree upon:
Sure... :ahem:


*Invisible.
*Doesn’t speak to us (as in directly by words).
*Won’t perform miracles on demand in order to show himself.
Invisible... Not to Moses...
He did speak to us, but no nessesarily directly through words...
He did perform all the miracles we needed to see...


So of course, believing is a matter of faith, not knowledge. Evidence is required to assess the claims of Christianity.
Just as evidence is required to assess the claims of Non-Theism.


Hopefully you aren’t giving too much of your money to the church. I don’t know how the church’s sexual restrictions affect you.
:ahem:... Makes me a better spender of money and I'm not dying from the lack of sex in my life... Quite the opposite actually... :wink:


Christianity is in decline. Americans are holding out while Europeans have bailed out.
Turns out being a Christian ain't easy...


I laugh at the Adam and Eve story, which I have spent a ton of time researching.
I laugh at this thread, which I've spent a ton of time reading.


You don’t have a prayer of defending that, and I’d be happy to quickly change your
mind if you want to discuss the matter here.
I'm seriously doubting that since you've been wanting to discuss that since page one and when people respond you ignore them.


Of course, there are Christians who treat Genesis as myth.
Everyone makes mistakes.


I agree with their assesment of Genesis.
I don't...


Generally I’m not too interested in discussing Christianity with them. If Genesis isn’t true, at best they worship a liar. They may disagree, but that’s how I see it. I’m not interested.
And you follow a liar, YOURSELF... You may disagree but that's how I see it. I'm not interested.


Best of luck to you. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Right back at ya Jim... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

[shunyadragon]

As an aside, I personally "feel" that the law of gravity is very bad. Why can't I jump off a building and just float to the ground. Splatting on the ground seems like a very unfair price to pay for one split second's wrong decision. I refuse to believe in it.
I like this one!!! It is more in line with fundimentalist Christian religious reasoning.

[shunyadragon]

The two reasons you gave for being an atheist (evolution and your distaste of the concept of hell) are completely unconvincing to me.

For example, for evolution to be true I would first need to believe the following propositions:

1. Something came from nothing
2. Order came from disorder
3. Life came from inorganic matter
4. Variation came from sameness
5. Intelligence came from non-intelligence
6. Language arises from no language
7. Morality arises from non-morality

Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to believe the above.
Thank Goodness there is something we can agree on! :ahem: I as a geologist along with the other advocates of evolution could never accept any of this rubbish.:eek:

Go with the flow the river knows.

Frank

[shunyadragon]

Dear Jim:

Though I cannot say I have the time to dedicate to a debate on evolution, your blanket statement was quite unfair. I am fully aware of the "evidence" for evolution and find it wholly unconvincing.
From the point of view of a Geologist you may not believe in evolution, but it is doubtful that you are fully aware of the evidence for evolution or educated well enough to understand it.

'Ignorance is not bliss . . . it is down right dangerous!!!!'

Go with the flow the river knows.

Frank

[Fideist345]

From the point of view of a Geologist you may not believe in evolution, but it is doubtful that you are fully aware of the evidence for evolution or educated well enough to understand it.

'Ignorance is not bliss . . . it is down right dangerous!!!!'
The undying thread rises once more! :teeth:

[Amazing Rando]

Like a phoenix from the ashes, "Any reasons to be a Christian?" rises again, ready to confound the confident, befuddle the brilliant, and bamboozle the boorish.

[shunyadragon]

Like a phoenix from the ashes, "Any reasons to be a Christian?" rises again, ready to confound the confident, befuddle the brilliant, and bamboozle the boorish.
Reality is boorish, frightening and ah . . . interesting.

I thought it would be fun to tickle the tummy of the dragon.

[Seasanctuary]

I thought it would be fun to tickle the tummy of the dragon.

Numquam titallare draco dormiens.

[Xavier]

Like a phoenix from the ashes, "Any reasons to be a Christian?" rises again, ready to confound the confident, befuddle the brilliant, and bamboozle the boorish.
The... :argh: Thread... :argh: Won't... :argh: DIE... :argh:

Summon an old priest and a young priest...

[cbro]

shuny. do you doubt my signature?

[Seasanctuary]

shuny. do you doubt my signature?

Cbro, why don't you start a separate thread entitled: "Everyone please look at my signature and comment on it." :teeth:

I just notice that you've been using all the other threads to say that lately.

[Jim E.]

Thank Goodness there is something we can agree on! :ahem: I as a geologist along with the other advocates of evolution could never accept any of this rubbish.:eek:

Go with the flow the river knows.

Frank

Evolution and the Christian notion of God go together like a warm day and ice.

Jim

[Seasanctuary]

Evolution and the Christian notion of God go together like a warm day and ice.
And Christianity is the ice. :eek:

...doesn't everyone like playing Cheap Shot(tm)?

[Xavier]

Evolution and the Christian notion of God go together like a warm day and ice.

Jim
GRMorton might disagree as would Van Till who I know you've been in contact with before.

[Amazing Rando]

Evolutionary Hymn
-C.S. Lewis


Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair:
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us,
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice in the present,
Joy or sorrow, what are they
While there's always jam to-morrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
Ail the questions we perplexed.

On then! Value means survival -
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity.
(Far from pleasant, by our present
Standards, though it well may be.)

[EvoUK]

How odd...

[Amazing Rando]

How odd...

Hey Evo- isn't this the greatest thread ever? :wink:

[shunyadragon]

Evolutionary Hymn
-C.S. Lewis


Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair:
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us,
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice in the present,
Joy or sorrow, what are they
While there's always jam to-morrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
Ail the questions we perplexed.

On then! Value means survival -
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity.
(Far from pleasant, by our present
Standards, though it well may be.)
Great! I love it!

A little humor to lighten the reality of science always helps.:lol: :lol:

[Xavier]

Great! I love it!

A little humor to lighten the reality of science always helps.:lol: :lol:
Yeah too bad they couldn't stand the REAL reality.... :hehe:

[Fideist345]

Evolutionary Hymn
-C.S. Lewis


For stagnation is despair:

Mindless liberal scum!












:bravo:

[Amazing Rando]

So.... :bump:

[Lovell Tamayo]

evolution is too weak to believe in. how can creation come out of nothing??? in order for one to come to exist there must be a "first cause" and that "first cause" is not an organic thing that build itself up and transformed into monkeys then into man, that "first cause" is God himself speaking us into existence. How come the planets are in order (i mean they don't crash with one another), how can order come from disorder. someone must to put the planets in order, and that someone is GOD. evolution is too weak. i don't know what Darwin was doing when he thought of evolution. i think this is the biggest problem in america. as soon as we step in a science class, kids are brainwashed with evolution. then us christians ask ourselves how can there be so many unbelievers??? i understand that we live in a fallen world and so on, but that's not an excuse. evolution is the biggest lie on earth, and this lie is satan's bigest tool to hinder so many people to believe in God. we can take our kids to church but as soon as they step in school they associate with people other kids or teachers who believe in evolution. i mean the odds is stacked against us. i don't know...i'm sorry for getting out of context.

[Amazing Rando]

Welcome to Tweb, Lovell! :hi:

[Jim E.]

evolution is too weak to believe in. how can creation come out of nothing??? in order for one to come to exist there must be a "first cause" and that "first cause" is not an organic thing that build itself up and transformed into monkeys then into man, that "first cause" is God himself speaking us into existence. How come the planets are in order (i mean they don't crash with one another), how can order come from disorder. someone must to put the planets in order, and that someone is GOD. evolution is too weak. i don't know what Darwin was doing when he thought of evolution. i think this is the biggest problem in america. as soon as we step in a science class, kids are brainwashed with evolution. then us christians ask ourselves how can there be so many unbelievers??? i understand that we live in a fallen world and so on, but that's not an excuse. evolution is the biggest lie on earth, and this lie is satan's bigest tool to hinder so many people to believe in God. we can take our kids to church but as soon as they step in school they associate with people other kids or teachers who believe in evolution. i mean the odds is stacked against us. i don't know...i'm sorry for getting out of context.

Who created God?

[Seasanctuary]

Who created God?
Whoever created God would definitely show telltale signs of being designed for God creating.

[Bob the Builder]

How come the planets are in order (i mean they don't crash with one another)

I know this one! I know this one!

*ahem*
It's because they're in different orbits.

Thank you.

[shunyadragon]

evolution is too weak to believe in. how can creation come out of nothing??? in order for one to come to exist there must be a "first cause" and that "first cause" is not an organic thing that build itself up and transformed into monkeys then into man, that "first cause" is God himself speaking us into existence. How come the planets are in order (i mean they don't crash with one another), how can order come from disorder. someone must to put the planets in order, and that someone is GOD. evolution is too weak. i don't know what Darwin was doing when he thought of evolution. i think this is the biggest problem in america. as soon as we step in a science class, kids are brainwashed with evolution. then us christians ask ourselves how can there be so many unbelievers??? i understand that we live in a fallen world and so on, but that's not an excuse. evolution is the biggest lie on earth, and this lie is satan's bigest tool to hinder so many people to believe in God. we can take our kids to church but as soon as they step in school they associate with people other kids or teachers who believe in evolution. i mean the odds is stacked against us. i don't know...i'm sorry for getting out of context.
I believe as Darwin did in theistic evolution. What science sees as evolution and abiogenisis is simple the way creation took place.

Another point the study of the origins of life is abiogenisis and not evolution. The study of abiogenis is a relatively young science because it is only recently that science has acquired a basic knowledge of the chemistry of life.

[Jayrok]

Who created God?I was going to ask the same thing. Someone posted some reasons against evolution that included something like how could order come from disorder..

really? Order from disorder? lol

I have a question too...

God created everything, yes? he is in control of all destiny. Someone explain why Jesus had to die. Lucifer sinned, adam sinned. Because adam sinned we are all sinners. So God sent his son, Jesus (who is God BTW), to die for our sins, as to pay the "debt" of sin... owed to.. God? So God had his son come and experience a terrible death so that he (God) could be repaid for all of us sinning against him? That is just silly. Surely there was another way. After all, he is God right?

Jesus was in heaven before his earthly death... he was in heaven, in the same capacity as before, after his earthly death... Sacrifice?

[Xavier]

Who created God?
:duh: Why can't God make a rock he can't lift??? :duh:

[Amazing Rando]

:duh: Why can't God make a rock he can't lift??? :duh:

Why won't God give me a pony? :baby: :bawl:

[Jim E.]

:duh: Why can't God make a rock he can't lift??? :duh:
Oh boy. You’re just not getting it. If you want to be an emotional Christian, give it a try. You’re not doing your faith any honor. Christianity thrives on darkness and ignorance. Emotional faith, without reason, locks you in that darkness and ignorance. Better you than me.

Jim

[Xavier]

Oh boy.
I'm glad you think so too...


You’re just not getting it.
No doubt... :ahem:


If you want to be an emotional Christian, give it a try.
:huh:


You’re not doing your faith any honor.
Heaven forbid... :ahem:


Christianity thrives on darkness and ignorance.
Atheism relies on emotion and ignorance.


Emotional faith, without reason, locks you in that darkness and ignorance. Better you than me.
The sad thing here Jim is that you think you honestly have reason. Having read some of your postings here and elsewhere. All you've got is bad emotional arguments for atheism.

As far as Blind emotional "faith", you got it exactly right: Better you than me.

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

Atheism relies on emotion and ignorance.

You've been spanked so hard you've begun to "think" (and I use the word very loosely) with that end.

Atheism is reason/evidence oriented. Christianity is crumbling. You can only remain a Christian by avoiding atheist arguments. Once you hear the arguments there is no recourse but to surrender faith or become an emotional Christian. For now, you're in the latter camp (and it shows). Just because you're an emotional Christian doesn't mean I'm going to let you get away with it. When you post in a forum like this, you just look silly. That's one of the consequences of abandoning reason. Like I said, better you than me.

B-bye Xavee,

Jim

[Xavier]

You've been spanked so hard you've begun to "think" (and I use the word very loosely) with that end.
NO... That's exactly what I read... EVERY time I read an argument for Atheism. It's NEVER logical or rational. Just emotional appeals to garbage.


Atheism is reason/evidence oriented.
:lmbo:


Christianity is crumbling.
:rofl:


You can only remain a Christian by avoiding atheist arguments.
I met the Atheist arguments and unlike some people I had the rationality to hold my own against them.


Once you hear the arguments there is no recourse but to surrender faith or become an emotional Christian.
That's just your poor rationalization of your own decision it certainly isn't mine. I've not been swayed by many atheistic arguments because I personally feel that their worldviews do a poor job of representing reality as I see it.


For now, you're in the latter camp (and it shows). Just because you're an emotional Christian doesn't mean I'm going to let you get away with it.
:lol: Case in Point for "Emotional" Atheism... Do I really need to point out any more examples???


When you post in a forum like this, you just look silly.
A fair number of people would disagree with you on that one since I've received positive reputation for several posts in this thread...

As far as silly is conserned, The little white box you have as your reputation at this site should be a little hint as to who the silly one really is.


That's one of the consequences of abandoning reason.
No... But starting threads called "Any Reasons to be a Christian" and filling them with ignorance of Christian doctrine and emotional appeals to "atheism" is a consequence of abondoning reason.


Like I said, better you than me.
:lmbo:

Later Jimmy,
Xavier

[Jayrok]

For example, for evolution to be true I would first need to believe the following propositions:

1. Something came from nothing
So to believe in evolution, one will have to believe that something came from nothing.. This is the same for God and creation. One will have to believe that something else created God. God didn't come from nothing did he? or did he... what's good for the goose, is good...



2. Order came from disorder
3. Life came from inorganic matter
4. Variation came from sameness
5. Intelligence came from non-intelligence
6. Language arises from no language
7. Morality arises from non-morality

Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to believe the above.


2 and 5 go together. As Intelligence grew, then man realized he needed to have order to survive. How did intelligence grow? through man's discovery of his environment and instinct to survive.

Variation from sameness? this one shouldn't be on your list.

Languages from no language and morality from non-morality... communication has developed throughout our existence at a steady rate. As for morality, see items 2 and 5.

[Jim E.]

Xavee,

Let's go back to the question that you sidestepped, avoided, and fled from.

Who created God?

Jim

[Xavier]

Xavee,

Let's go back to the question that you sidestepped, avoided, and fled from.

Who created God?

Jim
Aseity.

[Amazing Rando]

But X, I thought Satori created God! :huh:

[Xavier]

But X, I thought Satori created God! :huh:
:lmbo:

[Jim E.]

Aseity.

Oh, so much comes to mind, Xavee. Yet I am one person, with limited time to address all the deficiencies (spoken and unspoken because you're too afraid) in your arguments.

I guess that I'll just say that YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!! Your god requires no evidence and no argumentation. He just is because you say he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, why bother, there's no amount of exclamation points that can describe such a position. You're no real Christian, son. You're just some stubborn person who likes to get his way.

Done,

Jim

[Xavier]

Oh, so much comes to mind, Xavee.
That of course would require.... Nevermind.


Yet I am one person, with limited time to address all the deficiencies (spoken and unspoken because you're too afraid) in your arguments.
:lmbo:


I guess that I'll just say that YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!
Your ignorance is without bound.


Your god requires no evidence and no argumentation.
You at least got something right. Belief in God is properly basic. For the same reason that I can assume other people have minds, I can assume that God exists.


He just is because you say he is!
It's called a definition, Jim. If you can't understand the basic principle at play here, then you really need to do MUCH more study before you come here and start blabbing about how other people are smart enough.


Oh, why bother, there's no amount of exclamation points that can describe such a position.
Surprising how amazing the truth really is...


You're no real Christian, son.
And you're not an arrogant self-absorbed atheist.


You're just some stubborn person who likes to get his way.

Pot meet Kettle...


Done,
That's too bad... Guess the Truth is really that scary for some people.

Yours,
Xavier

[KingDavid8]

Atheism is reason/evidence oriented. Christianity is crumbling. You can only remain a Christian by avoiding atheist arguments.

If Christians always avoid atheist arguments, then why are Christians here arguing with atheists?

Out of curiosity, can you name an atheist argument (that is, one based on reason and/or evidence) that Christians have always avoided?

David

[Jim E.]

You at least got something right. Belief in God is properly basic. For the same reason that I can assume other people have minds, I can assume that God exists.

Christianity is crumbling. In a few minutes, the internet can expose a lifetime of Christian ignorance and deception. Now, to be fair, TWeb is a site much more in line with traditional Christianity than other Christian sites out there. Other Christian sites aim to cut discussion off and shield believers and questioners from contrary arguments. In 2004, Christianity is a religion of darkness. Now, to be fair, U.S. Christians aren’t overtly violent. However, Christianity breeds arrogance and contempt for evidence. And Christians tend to vote for their own. So Christianity is still a threat to me. Christians also value the Bible over pleasure/pain values. And they like to legislate their morality.

You’ve been exposed to atheist arguments. You know the Bible has errors. You know Jesus didn’t return like the New Testament said he would. But you have a BIG attitude. You’re not going to have the luxury of being coddled out of your faith. The religionists have sold you a bill of goods. The proper response is anger, and getting on with your life. A BIG attitude doesn’t make you a Christian. You may be just directing your anger at atheists because of how you were raised. That’s not a grown-up thing to do.



And you're not an arrogant self-absorbed atheist.

Generally I ignore these types of comments. Christians have their backs against the wall and often lash out, accusing atheists of the things they are oh so guilty of themselves. But it seems that you’ve made a few similar remarks lately. Let me remind you. I am here to discuss evidence. I only get irritated when the Christian wants to hurl insults and avoid issues. Christianity is far too weighty a subject to be distracted by childish antics. I realize that Christians may be near the brink of deconversion, and often flail about wildly and irrationally.

Jim

[Xavier]

You’ve been exposed to atheist arguments.
Yep.


You know the Bible has errors.
Only because you assume they are there.


You know Jesus didn’t return like the New Testament said he would.
I'm a preterist. He came exactly like he said he would. You need to stop reading Ferrel Till and start reading scholarship.


But you have a BIG attitude.
Yep... I must say you draw the best out of me... :wink:


You’re not going to have the luxury of being coddled out of your faith.
Well thanks.


The religionists have sold you a bill of goods.
The "rationalists" have sold you theirs.


The proper response is anger, and getting on with your life.
OR Standing up for Truth, Guess we know who's the strong one, eh? :wink:


A BIG attitude doesn’t make you a Christian.
But they earn you rep points in the EAC, eh? :lol:


You may be just directing your anger at atheists because of how you were raised. That’s not a grown-up thing to do.
I'm not angry for one... Two, people who wiggle and squirm to deny the truth aren't very grown up either.


I only get irritated when the Christian wants to hurl insults and avoid issues.
Then Jimmy... Go back there and actually deal with the argument about belief in God being properly basic...

As of right now, you've only presented yet ANOTHER emotional argument for atheism...

Of course, it's always nice to tell Christians how dumb and illogical they are... Yet or course, they are the ones with arguments rather than rhetoric.

Yours,
Xavier

[shunyadragon]

If Christians always avoid atheist arguments, then why are Christians here arguing with atheists?

Out of curiosity, can you name an atheist argument (that is, one based on reason and/or evidence) that Christians have always avoided?

DavidThe many contradictions and controvercies of the Bible.

If Christ was speaking and acting on behalf of God in the OT he ordered the slaughter of a lot of innocent people and allowed a cruel and inhuman slavery with rules.

This view of God give atheists a good foundation for their arguement.

I am not an atheist.

[shunyadragon]

Wow! responding to a post 8 months old! A new record for thread resurrection? :thumb:
But not a record for AIG BS. The organization is unfortunitely older than that.

[Jim E.]

If Christians always avoid atheist arguments, then why are Christians here arguing with atheists?

Out of curiosity, can you name an atheist argument (that is, one based on reason and/or evidence) that Christians have always avoided?

David

Hi David,

Sorry I've been away and didn't have time to respond. Christians regularly and routinely dodge the falsity (which can be easily shown by an atheist) of Genesis. I could probably change a fundamentalist's mind in a few posts. Before that point their emotions and defense mechanisms kick in.

I touched on a couple of reasons that I'm here in my response to Xavier. Christians also run and hide from the abundance of evidence that indicates Christianity was a failed apocalyptic movement. It seems most are just ignorant, and some have reverted to creative rationalizations (they could also be called lies) such as preterism. Preterism probably deserves its own thread.

Always happy to talk further,

Jim

[Jim E.]

I'm a preterist.


Yep.
Then Jimmy... Go back there and actually deal with the argument about belief in God being properly basic...

I'd start another thread if you want to talk preterism.

You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if your argument for God is that it is "properly basic." To play your ridiculous, absurd game (before I get bored out of my mind) please tell me what year the belief in the Christian god became "properly basic." Did God not exist before then?

Expecting more emotional nonsense (boy does it get old),

Jim

[Faramir]

Welcome back Jim. I shore have missed you.

I think it is great that you feel confident in attacking preterism.

If you recall I started a thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4524&page=1&pp=16) a few months back challenging you to put your money where your mouth is.

Your response was less than steller. So much so that your fellow athiest Gordon Freeman said:


I have been disappointed with Jim's failure to defend his views in this thread. That's why I jumped in.
Well unfortunately (and I mean that, I consider Gordan to be a friend and an asset to TWeb) Gordon isn't here to pick up your slack.

Your repsonses in that thread (or lack therof) speak for themselves.

Now I don't think you knew much (if anything) about preterism at that time. Apparently you think you know enough to argue against it.

Care to put your money where you mouth is? And not just talk about it.

I do not have time to a formal debate, but for you I will make time. I don't have much experience debating preterism with atheist, but in your case I doubt that that would make much difference.

So, are you willing to debate me one on one, mono a mono. Or are you still just all talk?

And if you do not have time to do a formal debate, I would be more than willing to start (yet) another thread here in Apologetics to give you an opportunity to show me the error of my way.

But I won't hold my breath. :eww:

[Jayrok]

I'm a preterist. He came exactly like he said he would.


So you believe, as a preterist, that Jesus did come in the clouds shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE? So does that mean we are living in the new earth (of revelation) now?

I've heard preterists explain away events of revelation as events that happened during the fall of 70 CE. They didn't explain the 100 pound balls of hail that was supposed to fall though, among other obvious questions from the myth that is revelation. How did he come, what happened, and what is next for those still left on earth? The final judgement?

[Xavier]

I'd start another thread if you want to talk preterism.
I don't care to discuss preterism with an atheist.


You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if your argument for God is that it is "properly basic." To play your ridiculous, absurd game (before I get bored out of my mind) please tell me what year the belief in the Christian god became "properly basic." Did God not exist before then? I knew you did understand the argument. Perhaps you should read some Christian Philosophy some time. Perhaps you could start with some Ron Nash or if you are particularly in need Plantagina.


Expecting more emotional nonsense (boy does it get old), Yes, it does Jim... Wonder when your going to stop spewing it in tons.

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

So you believe, as a preterist, that Jesus did come in the clouds shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE?
I believe Christ fulfilled what he said...


So does that mean we are living in the new earth (of revelation) now?
No.


I've heard preterists explain away events of revelation as events that happened during the fall of 70 CE. They didn't explain the 100 pound balls of hail that was supposed to fall though, among other obvious questions from the myth that is revelation.
And I haven't heard answers about why skeptics would care about "myth" so much...

The short answer is: Try reading for some context... Check out Eschatology is your spare time.


How did he come, what happened, and what is next for those still left on earth? The final judgement?
Final judgement is... ha,ha... Final. And it hasn't happened yet.

Yours,
Xavier

[Jayrok]

And I haven't heard answers about why skeptics would care about "myth" so much...

The short answer is: Try reading for some context... Check out Eschatology is your spare time.

maybe some skeptics are still trying to see if it is not a myth? why do you think some of us still care? I care because I believed whole-heartedly for most of my life. I'm still looking for compelling argument that the whole thing is not a myth.

I've read through the Eschatology section on this site.. particularly preterist views. I think they are wrong in their assumption regarding Christ coming back after 70 CE.

[Xavier]

maybe some skeptics are still trying to see if it is not a myth? It's takes a TON of context to even begin to study Revelation. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface in my own studies, but from what I've read thus far preterism has the best answer.


why do you think some of us still care? I care because I believed whole-heartedly for most of my life. I'm still looking for compelling argument that the whole thing is not a myth. Start in stuff that would be verifiable. Work your way out. Since there are sects of Christianity who don't even claim Revelation in the canon, it might be best to start your work from elsewhere.


I've read through the Eschatology section on this site.. particularly preterist views. I think they are wrong in their assumption regarding Christ coming back after 70 CE. I disagree... :wink:

Yours,
Xavier

[Douglas Firth]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org:lol: This opinion or position you have taken has GOT to be bate to cause discussion.
I don't believe that any one with a logical mind could accept the theory of evolution.
In Alberta Canada, on a wild game farm, they have lions who obviously don't belong in this country. IN WINTER the lions grow long hair. THEY don't become polar bears. My point is that animals ADAPT to their environment. They do not change species. You will not find EVIDENCE of any life form changing into another species. If you have such evidence, I would like to know that there is documented proof by someone who doesn't have their own agenda to put forward. By the way, the bones they claimed were of early man, the supposed Cro-magnan or such, in most cases were bad science investigation.Second looks at some bones have discovered monkey structures.
The purpose in proving evolution correct is to DENY the existance of GOD.
If they could prove that GOD as we know HIM is purely a figment of imagination, then all laws that we live by, the whole moral structure of society, which provides PEACE, would have no foundation.
When you have no rules, you have only the fit who survive. BUT THAT doesn't mean that the fit or powerful have a BENEVOLENT intent. Usually their own interests are at the forefront.SO THAT is ONE reason. PEACE for society.

:ahem: And those ten basic commandments,? they are actually a healthy way to live.Scripture and the old testament tell us NOT to engage in sex before marriage. And it tells us what foods we should eat to be healthy.
Who is catching the sexually transmitted diseases?It is those who participate in pre-marital sex, or ANY sex OUTSIDE the traditional marriage.
I am not sinless in that respect but I tried to remain virgin until marriage.

GOD takes you "AS IS" when you come to HIM in prayer and helps you learn more of HIM, but if you don't believe HE exists, you have a major problem.
Do you know anyone who has created a tree lately, or a house fly? We are just beginning to understand genetics, and how it works.

My personal testemoney, is that I had prayer answered.
I prayed for a prostitute who I knew was talking of suicide.
Her family had nothing to do with her. I asked "Father she needs your help".
I was driving a taxi cab, and TWO DAYS later in a city of 600,00 people,
I meet her brother.He got in the cab.There are probably 500 taxi cabs in this city. AND I checked, he told me the same last name. (I didn't believe him)
So I gave him the address, told him to get together with his sister.and her talk of suicide.
Now WHO do you think could arrange that meeting with her brother ?
I was used to answer the prayer.:smile:
I am sure you can find others who have had prayer answered.
As I said before GOD takes you "AS IS" if you are willling to try.

[steamer]

I prayed for a prostitute who I knew was talking of suicide.
Did god send you one?

[TheFiveSolas]

:lol: This opinion or position you have taken has GOT to be bate to cause discussion.
I don't believe that any one with a logical mind could accept the theory of evolution.
In Alberta Canada, on a wild game farm, they have lions who obviously don't belong in this country. IN WINTER the lions grow long hair. THEY don't become polar bears. My point is that animals ADAPT to their environment. They do not change species. You will not find EVIDENCE of any life form changing into another species.

I'd be a bit more careful in your wording. The classification system (i.e., kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, etc.) was one invented by men and in it there have been "new species" of creatures that have emerged (i.e., new species of finches). However, these new finches are still finches, not "polar bears", etc. What we creationists need to scientifically investigate is where the line is/should be drawn as to the original "kinds" that God created. In other words, were the original kinds equivalent to OUR CURRENT classification of species (I think not) or were they more on the level of "Order" or "Family"? There appears to be evidence of "limits to biological change", and these limits may be indicative of where the "line" should be drawn for what constitutes the original created "kinds".

[EvoUK]

The only reasons for being xian that I can think of *only* apply within a xian worldview.

Without the threat of hell, I can concieve of no other reason to be xian over any other religion/non-religion.

[Jim E.]

This opinion or position you have taken has GOT to be bate to cause discussion.

Hello Douglas,

Let’s not pull punches. You are suffering from religious indoctrination. It is just an outdated belief system. Maybe someday I’ll compile a list of ideas that have been discarded (flat earth, for one). Imagine how different life was before electricity. I’m sure the list would be long.

The atheist position is vastly superior to the Christian position. You already know this. The tone of your post was fearful. You fear change, Douglas (heck, how many of us are really good with change?). And you don’t want to casually give up on eternal life, or risk hell.

I don’t need science any more to prove Christianity false. The Christian concepts of heaven
and hell are logically impossible.

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.

The thread “Heaven and Hell Hype” goes into more detail.

Christianity is no match for information available for free on the internet. I congratulate you for having the courage to post in this forum. I’m sure that you want your ideas heard and understood. Atheism will give you much more freedom than Christianity. You’re only on the losing side as long as you remain a Christian. Become an atheist, and gain peace with the evidence. Hopefully it won’t take you too long to get there. There are a lot of atheists out there, with a lot of time to devote to the pursuit of truth. My time is limited, and there is no way that I can possibly answer all of your questions.

I am committed to the thread “Heaven and Hell Hype” however, and will take all comers. Remember, you don't want to be caught dead in a false religion.

Jim

[Xavier]

I don’t need science any more to prove Christianity false. The Christian concepts of heaven and hell are logically impossible.

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.


Yeah, I can see that logic is working just as well for you...

I don't think I've seen 2 non-sequiters in a 3 line syllogism before...

1) has no relation to 2). 2) has no relation to 3).

And I feel it is important to point that "logically impossible" requires violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction... And even if your proof made the slightest bit of sense, it still wouldn't prove your claim.

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

I don’t need science any more to prove Christianity false. The Christian concepts of heaven and hell are logically impossible.

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.

Yeah, I can see that logic is working just as well for you...

I don't think I've seen 2 non-sequiters in a 3 line syllogism before...

1) has no relation to 2). 2) has no relation to 3).

And I feel it is important to point that "logically impossible" requires violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction... And even if your proof made the slightest bit of sense, it still wouldn't prove your claim.

Yours,
Xavier
Enough with the mumbo-jumbo, Xavier (although Christians do have a lot of experience in that). I see that you have not disagreed with any of my statements. I think we have another closet atheist. Let’s continue the discussion.

Christians claim that afterlife places called heaven and hell exist. Certainly we see a problem already. You don’t know until it is too late if you are right or wrong.

All that you have done is tried to complicate something that is really simple (if you’re not too afraid to think non-Christian thoughts).

Does Xavier disagree that people act in their self-interest? No, he didn’t disagree with that.

Well, you’ve already accepted atheism, Xavier. End of story.

Jim

[Xavier]

:rofl:

Now, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT...

[Jim E.]

:rofl:

Now, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT...

Xavier, there is nothing funny about participating in a false religion. I
suggest that you remove that cross below your name. You don't know
what is out there in the universe. If there is a god, he/she/it is sure
to punish your participation in a false religion. Don't put your name on
any religion that you can't defend.

Jim

[Xavier]

I've already defended my religion... Just because the response flew right over your head, don't think I did not do so.

I'm slowly, but surely taking the position that Atheism isn't even a viable alternative to religion. I'm not sure that its basic presuppositions are not contradictory and dreadfully out of touch with reality (bad epistemology mostly).

Anywho, I didn't bother to address any of your statement's content, because it didn't really matter. Even if ALL THREE of them were true (which none of them are), you STILL wouldn't have proven your case. THAT was the point of my "mumbo-jumbo".

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

I'm slowly, but surely taking the position that Atheism isn't even a viable alternative to religion.
Pretending to lose your mind isn't a viable alternative to rational discussion, Mr. Closet Atheist. Of course atheism is a viable alternative to religion. Atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist. Religion is the belief that he/she/it does. VIABLE ALTERNATIVE defined. Now come out of the closet, before it's too late.

Jim

[Xavier]

I see that the definition of "viable" is also lost on you... Good job responding to my points though (HA!).

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

I see that the definition of "viable" is also lost on you... Good job responding to my points though (HA!).

Yours,
Xavier
Come out of the closet, gosh darn it. I fear for your eternal future. I know that you have abandoned rational discussion in this thread. So I'm appealing to your fear.

Actually, I'm just counter-acting the volumes of fear that Christianity instills in its adherents.

I guess alternately, you could be a bit of an addict. Getting high on future eternal rewards and the notion of being "served" by the god of the universe. Sober up, man, before you get too old to really live.

Jim

[Xavier]

Come out of the closet, gosh darn it.

Is that frustration I sense? Are you worried that other people won't vindicate your reasons for turning your back on Christianity?

In another point, I can rather honestly say that "eternal rewards" are the least of the reason that I am and remain a Christian.

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

Is that frustration I sense? Are you worried that other people won't vindicate your reasons for turning your back on Christianity?

In another point, I can rather honestly say that "eternal rewards" are the least of the reason that I am and remain a Christian.

Yours,
Xavier
I'm not worried about vindication. I just like atheist domination. It's your life. I want you to live in truth, not in fear.

Christianity without eternal life/hell avoidance is like food without calories.

And I'd bet my last dime on the following. If you believed being a Christian would cause you to miss out on eternal bliss, you'd deconvert quickly.

Jim (feeling the upper hand in the discussion)

[Xavier]

I'm not worried about vindication. I just like atheist domination. It's your life. I want you to live in truth, not in fear.

Christianity is the turth.


Christianity without eternal life/hell avoidance is like food without calories.

Atheism without it's "No God" policy is like... Oh wait...


And I'd bet my last dime on the following. If you believed being a Christian would cause you to miss out on eternal bliss, you'd deconvert quickly.

Bad Dime to bet... If I believed Christianity was anything other than the truth, I'd deconvert quickly.


(feeling the upper hand in the discussion)

Maybe it's not just bad epistemology... Maybe it's just bad perception altogether. :nsm:

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

Christianity is the turth.
I don't believe you believe that. That's why you're hedging your responses. I'm ready to have a full-blown discussion of why heaven and hell are logically impossible. You're not. You know that you're wrong. But coming out of the closet is a big deal. I understand.



Atheism without it's "No God" policy is like... Oh wait...

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. However, there could be a god out there who hasn't revealed him/her/itself. There's no way to know. All I know is that Christianity is logically impossible. And those who participate are risking everything by attaching their name to it. If there is a god out there, surely it is the Christians who will be punished. Atheists want nothing to do with false religion.



Bad Dime to bet... If I believed Christianity was anything other than the truth, I'd deconvert quickly.
What are you waiting for then? Remove that cross below your name. I think that this is cheap talk.

Ready to have a REAL discussion at ANY time. (And pointing out holes in Christianity along the way),

Jim

[Xavier]

Ready to have a REAL discussion at ANY time. (And pointing out holes in Christianity along the way),

Jim

Nope... If I wanted a "real discussion", I would go elsewhere.

Let's be frank. I use you as cheap amusement for extremely bad argumentation. You are a neverending supply of halarious material. You can't seem to string together a cogent logical argument. I can only imagine what other threads you participate in must be like.

Thanks for the good laughs though. It's always a joy to hear from you... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

[Jim E.]

Nope... If I wanted a "real discussion", I would go elsewhere.

Let's be frank. I use you as cheap amusement for extremely bad argumentation. You are a neverending supply of halarious material. You can't seem to string together a cogent logical argument. I can only imagine what other threads you participate in must be like.

Thanks for the good laughs though. It's always a joy to hear from you... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier
Distractions aside, there's nothing complicated about it. People act in their self-interest. Good-bye to the concepts of heaven and hell.

A lifetime is a long time to pretend, Xavier. Cheap insults now are no substitute for honoring the truth during your life.

Jim

[roger_pearse]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?

The fringe benefits are out of this world... :)

It also has the benefit of being rational and consciously chosen. Those who reject it invariably find themselves living by period values and the societal menu of choices. Since this happens by fashion and changes every 40 years, it plainly is not a rational choice. Most people imagine this conformist position is a default. But rational people get sceptical about 'default' positions, surely?


To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution

This sounds odd, logically. A bunch of turtles swim out to a pair of islands, and develop over time into separate sub-species. I don't understand how this demonstrates that there cannot be such a thing as a deity, any more than it would demonstrate that there cannot be such a thing as a a merchant banker or a VW Polo. The two things do not, to my eye, seem related.


and the infinite cruelty of the concept of hell.


After Auschwitz, surely those who believe Hitler got away with it have explaining to do, not those who think he did not.

As for 'infinite cruelty' -- survival of the fittest renders that sentiment meaningless, surely?


Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is.

Nor anyone else, outside of specialists, I expect.


And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

I feel more sorry for those to whom it comes as a surprise!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Jim E.]

The fringe benefits are out of this world... :)
In a way, I agree with you, Roger. Eternal bliss is an almost unimaginable benefit. You know what they say about things that sound too good to be true, don’t you Roger? And you don’t know if Christianity delivers the goods until after it’s too late. Major problem. Major credibility problem.



It also has the benefit of being rational and consciously chosen. Those who reject it invariably find themselves living by period values and the societal menu of choices. Since this happens by fashion and changes every 40 years, it plainly is not a rational choice. Most people imagine this conformist position is a default. But rational people get sceptical about 'default' positions, surely?
You don’t “choose” Christianity any more than you choose your gender. We’re a product of our environment, Roger. Everyone has Christian influences and non-Christian influences. Things that conflict with the bible (such as what we discover about our planet, logic, reason, etc.) are non-Christian influences. Things which promote the Bible (fear, hope, intolerance) are Christian influences.

Obviously you have Christian influences in your life, Roger. BUT, you also have non-Christian influences.

One problem with Christianity is that it’s not logical. There’s no getting around that. Use your brain, Roger! Allow it to think non-Christian thoughts. You’ll find that they make a lot more sense. Of course, the dangerous mind-control of Christianity won’t allow you to do that. So you’re stuck. Going nowhere fast. Caught up in a defenseless religion. If you don’t want to discuss anything of substance, then let’s just go our separate ways.

I don’t know if you’ve read what I’ve written about heaven and hell. They are logically impossible. I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread.

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.

Jim

[Xavier]

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.

Jim

1) is STILL under discussion in major ethical and moral circles and is therefore argumentative (at best).

2) is just plain stupid. There's really no other way to put it. There are quite a few "sane people" who accept the Christian consepts of Heaven and Hell. Therefore, 2) is demonstrablely false and the argument fails.

3) is true anyway (for most). No Christian is going to sit back and tell you that everyone is going to make it. Someone will end up in Hell.

That said, I offer my parody argument to Jim's so he may prove it wrong.

1) People act in their own self-interest.
2) Any sane person would believe that Christianity is the truth.
3) Therefore, the Christian consepts of Heaven and Hell are true.

There you go Jim... Prove MY argument wrong.

Yours,
Xavier

[roger_pearse]

In a way, I agree with you, Roger. Eternal bliss is an almost unimaginable benefit. You know what they say about things that sound too good to be true, don’t you Roger? And you don’t know if Christianity delivers the goods until after it’s too late. Major problem. Major credibility problem.

You were planning on not dying? :)


You don’t “choose” Christianity any more than you choose your gender.

You don't seem well informed about Christianity, or, indeed, the people you're pontificating to.


We’re a product of our environment, Roger.

Surely. But the question is whether or not these should determine our beliefs or not. I'm not clear why you think they should. I do not think they should.


One problem with Christianity is that it’s not logical. There’s no getting around that.

One problem with your position of conformity is that it makes people think nonsense. I'm sure you're as intelligent as I am, yet you come out with this because you've heard it said. Yet you don't have anything but assertion to say for it. The religious position you silently expect us to adopt includes all sorts of inconsistencies -- people sitting in circles worshipping rocks, while others sit around complaining Christianity is not logical. Both are part of the menu of ideas of our time, that you -- and most people -- conform to. But how can you defend that inconsistency, logically? Other than by some argument of convenience.


Use your brain, Roger!

This is only an elderly atheist jibe, isn't it? So, why not do some of what you suggest I do.

You might start by asking yourself why you're repeating these tired old slogans, instead of thinking for yourself? Rather embarrassing, surely?


Allow it to think non-Christian thoughts. You’ll find that they make a lot more sense.

I look forward to the demonstration of how mindless conformity to a purely fashionable value-idea system makes sense.


So you’re stuck. Going nowhere fast. Caught up in a defenseless religion.

That seems to be your position, not mine. But I think you can escape. Just start examining why you should conform to a set of values and ideas which were not arrived at rationally, and which change every 40 years anyway? Then consider where next.


If you don’t want to discuss anything of substance, then let’s just go our separate ways.

This again seems to be a jeer repeated from some other document, as it doesn't connect with anything in this post.

You don't seem to be able to discuss your own religious position at all. Aren't you *embarrassed*?


I don’t know if you’ve read what I’ve written about heaven and hell. They are logically impossible.


I didn't see this, in what is now a very long thread. But isn't this quite medieval, pronouncing on matters of fact on the basis of theorising? In the modern era, surely we use investigation instead.



I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread.

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.


I'm not sure what this is intended to show, although it features some clear category mistakes.

One problem I have with those of your religion who attack Christianity (beyond their inability even to state their position positively) is that they so often fail to actually make their points, and instead expect the rest of us to infer them. You make no conclusion here, and, as far as I can see, there is no obvious sequitur from these comments.

May I recommend that every time you feel like coming out with a cliche, that you don't? It's good practise for us all. Try to put it into words of your own. Often you will find that you cannot: that outside of the slogan, there is nothing. Conformity is like that. So, free your mind.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Gideon Brown]

2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.

2) is just plain stupid. There's really no other way to put it. There are quite a few "sane people" who accept the Christian consepts of Heaven and Hell. Therefore, 2) is demonstrablely false and the argument fails.

Xav, I think what he meant is that any sane person, given the choice between going to heaven or going to hell, would accept heaven and reject hell. But, you're still right overall, of course. :wink:

[roger_pearse]

Xav, I think what he meant is that any sane person, given the choice between going to heaven or going to hell, would accept heaven and reject hell.

Well, it all depends what Heaven and Hell are. Some have thought that they are the same place -- the presence of God unveiled -- and the fires of hell are only the light of God as experienced by those who reject Him. In which case, we don't get a choice.

Think about it: if heaven is endless Sunday School, and you're not a believer, *could* you make yourself choose it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Xavier]

Xav, I think what he meant is that any sane person, given the choice between going to heaven or going to hell, would accept heaven and reject hell. But, you're still right overall, of course. :wink:

:doh: I seriously misread that... Okay, Strike the comment, but the general form still stands.

[Gideon Brown]

Well, it all depends what Heaven and Hell are. Some have thought that they are the same place -- the presence of God unveiled -- and the fires of hell are only the light of God as experienced by those who reject Him. In which case, we don't get a choice.

:yes: That's the Eastern Orthodox perspective, if I understand correctly.

[Jim E.]

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.




1) is STILL under discussion in major ethical and moral circles and is therefore argumentative (at best).
Show me someone who would rather have $10 than $20 in their pocket. Multiply that by infinity, and show me someone who would accept heaven or reject hell. I know that you know what I’m talking about.



2) is just plain stupid. There's really no other way to put it. There are quite a few "sane people" who accept the Christian consepts of Heaven and Hell. Therefore, 2) is demonstrablely false and the argument fails.
Nope. What is in question here are the concepts of heaven and hell. And they are logically impossible. You can believe them if you’re brainwashed. You can’t believe them once you understand the other side of the story. And defense mechanisms may prevent you from getting too close to the other side of the story. I repeat, any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell. That’s not hard to understand. I didn’t say “Christians are insane.” I understand that you’re a bit defensive. But that’s not what I said.



3) is true anyway (for most). No Christian is going to sit back and tell you that everyone is going to make it. Someone will end up in Hell.
And thus Christianity dies. It’s dead on the internet. It’s dead in Europe. It’s alive in parts of America where people don’t know any better. You don’t know that heaven and hell exist, Xavier.

You don’t believe in orthodox heaven and hell. And no one would choose hell. No one. Not one person. And you have the Bible claiming that’s where a significant majority of humans are going. Sounds to me like a little cult lashing out at those who don’t buy into it.



That said, I offer my parody argument to Jim's so he may prove it wrong.

1) People act in their own self-interest.
Of course.


2) Any sane person would believe that Christianity is the truth.

Nope. Christianity is logically impossible. It has more to do with fear,
hope, and intolerance.


3) Therefore, the Christian consepts of Heaven and Hell are true.
Quite the contrary.

Note: I see that what you said about #2 was a misunderstanding.

Jim

[Jim E.]

You don't seem to be able to discuss your own religious position at all. Aren't you *embarrassed*?
I concede that Christians are at a disadvantage in these discussions. Going from atheism to Christianity is easy (if you don’t know better). Christianity has all the (supposed) benefits. Eternal bliss, avoiding (so some think) eternal punishment.

Atheists are asking Christians to give up a lot (although really it’s nothing at all).

The problem is never not being able to discuss my position. It’s trying to read between the lines of what the Christian is saying. What is going on when the Christian can’t handle your argument? Are they stupid? In my experience, people are always smarter than you think. Are they acting dumb? This is often the case. They don’t just come out and say, “Great point, I’m wrong.” Going from Christianity to atheism is a big change. And change can be difficult and scary.

Nothing complicated about it at all, Roger. The Christian concepts of heaven and hell are fish in a barrel. And I have plenty of ammunition.

[Gideon Brown]

1) People act in their own self-interest.

1) is STILL under discussion in major ethical and moral circles and is therefore argumentative (at best).

Show me someone who would rather have $10 than $20 in their pocket. Multiply that by infinity, and show me someone who would accept heaven or reject hell. I know that you know what I’m talking about.

In my experience, people are always smarter than you think. Are they acting dumb? This is often the case.

I love the irony here.

[Douglas Firth]

Hello Douglas,

Let’s not pull punches. You are suffering from religious indoctrination. It is just an outdated belief system. Maybe someday I’ll compile a list of ideas that have been discarded (flat earth, for one). Imagine how different life was before electricity. I’m sure the list would be long.

The atheist position is vastly superior to the Christian position. You already know this. The tone of your post was fearful. You fear change, Douglas (heck, how many of us are really good with change?). And you don’t want to casually give up on eternal life, or risk hell.

I don’t need science any more to prove Christianity false. The Christian concepts of heaven and hell are logically impossible.

1. People act in their self-interest.
2. Any sane person would accept heaven or reject hell.
3. Christianity claims that only a small percentage of people go to heaven.

The thread “Heaven and Hell Hype” goes into more detail.

Christianity is no match for information available for free on the internet. I congratulate you for having the courage to post in this forum. I’m sure that you want your ideas heard and understood. Atheism will give you much more freedom than Christianity. You’re only on the losing side as long as you remain a Christian. Become an atheist, and gain peace with the evidence. Hopefully it won’t take you too long to get there. There are a lot of atheists out there, with a lot of time to devote to the pursuit of truth. My time is limited, and there is no way that I can possibly answer all of your questions.

I am committed to the thread “Heaven and Hell Hype” however, and will take all comers. Remember, you don't want to be caught dead in a false religion.

Jim:argue: Hello Jim;
I apologize if my viewpoint seems irritating. But the fact is , I draw the line at death.Nobody has come back from the dead to tell us what happened to them. So ,if you were a betting man, why not hedge your bets by putting a little insurance into the "what if" proposition.
That would be the fact that GOD exists.
If you had seen the testamony I gave to answered prayer, I met the brother of a prostitute after praying for her welfare - purely by chance?? You have to wonder what the chances were for that occurrance two days later with a population of 600,000 people.I was driving a taxi at the time.
Answer three questions for me.
How do you create life from material that has all the components?
Perhaps a tree would be an example.
Who has the technology to do that?
The fact is ,life comes from life, and nobody has found WHERE that originated.
We are JUST beginning to understand how genetics works, and it does work efficiently. Who was the designer?

I don't believe some of the internet EVIDENCE is scientific.And some of that science has the agenda to disprove the existance of GOD.Ounce GOD is removed we can do whatever our selfish hearts desire WITHOUT fear of consequences.
If you deny GOD , then will people remember you because they loved you or hated you for your deeds, what would be the proportion?
It might be a bit vain, but how do you WANT to be remembered?
Your comments are a good illlustration of the selfish NATURE of man.
Example :"athiest position vastly superior" sounds a bit arrogant to me.
Out of your intellect you find justification to deny GOD.I think you have heard that the end of learning is when you think you know everything.The fact is WE don't know all of the mysteries of how to create life.
How much wisdom do you think you can learn in maybe seventy years on this planet? Can you imagine how much you could learn if you existed a thousand years?How long has this earth existed? If you had all the answers you probably WOULD be worshipped as a god here on earth.

[Jim E.]

So ,if you were a betting man, why not hedge your bets by putting a little insurance into the "what if" proposition.
That would be the fact that GOD exists.
Nope. The evidence says he doesn’t. You can’t force yourself to believe something
that you know the evidence contradicts. It’s more likely that there is an “atheism” god
out there who despises religious people. It is Christians who are under the gun.


How do you create life from material that has all the components?
Perhaps a tree would be an example.
Who has the technology to do that?
The fact is ,life comes from life, and nobody has found WHERE that originated.
We are JUST beginning to understand how genetics works, and it does work efficiently. Who was the designer?

You’re new to these discussions, aren’t you? That’s not a problem, but this question
comes up frequently. Who designed the designer?


Ounce GOD is removed we can do whatever our selfish hearts desire WITHOUT fear of consequences.

So you believe atheists have more fun? If so, I agree. And so did the apostle Paul,
by the way. The more ego-centric Christians will tell you that being a Christian is
actually more enjoyable than being an atheist. They pretty much think that everything
revolves around them. They’re most entertaining.

I’m not sure how much staying power you have, Douglas. I guess we’ll find out.

Jim

[roger_pearse]

RP: You don't seem to be able to discuss your own religious position at all. Aren't you *embarrassed*?

I concede that Christians are at a disadvantage ...[snip]

The problem is never not being able to discuss my position. It’s trying to read between the lines of what the Christian ...[snip]

Nothing complicated about it at all, Roger. The Christian concepts of heaven and hell are fish in a barrel. And I have plenty of ammunition.

What you do not have, it seems, is the ability to address a plain, simple, question. The rest of your comments are irrelevant.

So, you lose. By all means come back when you have something rational to say for your position. Until you can make sense, you have nothing to say except vituperation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Jim E.]

What you do not have, it seems, is the ability to address a plain, simple, question. The rest of your comments are irrelevant.

So, you lose. By all means come back when you have something rational to say for your position. Until you can make sense, you have nothing to say except vituperation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Let me suggest something to you (and most of the Christians/closet atheists around here). Don't go expecting other people to change unless you are willing to do so yourself.

Good day.

[Amazing Rando]

Well, it all depends what Heaven and Hell are. Some have thought that they are the same place -- the presence of God unveiled -- and the fires of hell are only the light of God as experienced by those who reject Him. In which case, we don't get a choice.


That's the Eastern Orthodox position isn't it? Interesting.

[Amazing Rando]

Show me someone who would rather have $10 than $20 in their pocket. Multiply that by infinity, and show me someone who would accept heaven or reject hell. I know that you know what I’m talking about.


I'd rather have none in my pocket if it meant that someone else got fed or sheltered that otherwise wouldn't have.

[Bob the Builder]

Just start examining why you should conform to a set of values and ideas which were not arrived at rationally, and which change every 40 years anyway?Do us a favour please, Roger - explain where you get this idea from!

[Douglas Firth]

The principle reason for being Christian is to provide oneself with hope for the future after death. And I believe that is common to many faiths.

The second reason would be to provide oneself with a guidline for peaceful living during this life, and an important lesson of wisdom to be passed to children.
The great value, is that the scriptures represent the wisdom of mankind and the love of God whom we can not see. Which fulfills our need for love and hope.
In fact, without the moral guide of scripture the WORLD would probably be pagan, filled with superstition and largely hazardous due to a lack of laws.

Fath in a GOD above and the level of ethics that HE represents provides a mark for us all to achieve, which has a positive effect on all who believe and worship.
And it provides a net blessing to ALL living in this world, which would be otherwise be quite primitive.:eek:

GOD BLESS :teeth:

[Darth Executor]

Rise from the grave! I'm off to make a necromancer smilie.

[Gideon Brown]

:yes:

I love rezzed Jim Eisele threads! :woohoo:

[BurningBush--U]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
There are many.

As for your concept of hell, I think your problems stem from not knowing the truths taught in scripture, and the false notion that all fundie thoughts are of a same make-up. Just because one profess a Christian belief not does make a Christian cake.

JUST WHAT EXACTLY do you dislike about your belief on hell and why?

[Jim E.]

The principle reason for being Christian is to provide oneself with hope for the future after death. And I believe that is common to many faiths.
Interesting post. I thought perhaps my days posting here were done. Largely I’m content to watch the fray at arm’s length. And I’m always grateful to TWeb for letting people speak their mind. In fact, on more than one occasion, I have actually donated to TWeb.

I don’t have as much time as I would like to fully address posts such as this. But I do wonder how many Christians merely hope as opposed to believe. To me, the word faith doesn’t mean what it used to.

And before we get into Truth issues, I will say that Christianity has the upper hand on atheism. By that I mean it offers more benefits. You have hit the nail directly on the head. Although I always find it funny that more Christians don’t just come out and say it the way that you have.



and an important lesson of wisdom to be passed to children.
Now we’re getting down to brass tacks. A while back I started a thread called Heaven and Hell Hype. My current thought is to revisit that topic once a year. The subject did come up recently in another thread that I was involved in. At any rate, that’s the best I have, Douglas. I honestly, truly believe that Christianity is logically impossible. And thus I must vigorously oppose the “wisdom” of passing it onto children.

I sit on one side of the fence. You sit on the other. The fence isn’t going to move. Our common ground will be limited. To the extend that you teach your children to be good people who value the Truth, I can support you.

Thanks for taking the time to post.



JUST WHAT EXACTLY do you dislike about your belief on hell and why?
It is a very intense topic. And I don’t hold back. I like to think that I can deconvert a Christian with three posts on this topic. In my opinion, this is evidenced by a Christian retreating into silence. If you want to start a thread on this, I will participate. Otherwise, if I’m not involved in another discussion on this topic, I plan to bring the issue up again in about a year.

Jim

[Douglas Firth]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
Hello Jim;
I think you are presenting ideas just for the sake of getting discussion.:lol:

The facts of evolution HAVE been questioned by prominent scientists and a number of them have removed their support for the theory.
One fact that any person who questions will discover, is that there is NO species on this earth that changes to a different specie.
The lions in Alberta grow longer hair in winter BUT they don't change into polar bears. There is fossil evidence in the ground , and it DID NOT DEMONSTRATE any change in their specie OVER TIME as found by professional archeologists.:ahem:
Darwin , I heard , eventually discounted his own theory.
So thanks anyway for the opportunity of discussion.
GOD BLESS

[Mentalist]

Hello Jim;
I think you are presenting ideas just for the sake of getting discussion.:lol:

The facts of evolution HAVE been questioned by prominent scientists and a number of them have removed their support for the theory.
One fact that any person who questions will discover, is that there is NO species on this earth that changes to a different specie.
The lions in Alberta grow longer hair in winter BUT they don't change into polar bears. There is fossil evidence in the ground , and it DID NOT DEMONSTRATE any change in their specie OVER TIME as found by professional archeologists.:ahem:
Darwin , I heard , eventually discounted his own theory.
So thanks anyway for the opportunity of discussion.
GOD BLESS

Which came first, the ignorance or the cultism?

[Wyzaard]

The facts of evolution HAVE been questioned by prominent scientists and a number of them have removed their support for the theory.

Argument from authority... and a dubious one at that, considering the overwhelming support for evolution in the scientific community.



One fact that any person who questions will discover, is that there is NO species on this earth that changes to a different specie.

Lots of examples here:

www.talkorigins.org



Darwin , I heard , eventually discounted his own theory.

A false account proffered by the Darwin's maid and a fundementalist organization years after his death... the family refutes the account solidly.

[LGM]

Which came first, the ignorance or the cultism?
The ignorance...the cultism simply tries to enforce it.



The lions in Alberta grow longer hair in winter BUT they don't change into polar bears.

Just so you know, scientists now have an Alberta lion in captivity, and after keeping it in a snow and ice filled cage, and feeding it baby seals for 2 years, it has turned about half way into a polar bear.

They estimate it will be a total polar bear sometime in 2008.

[Jim E.]

Hello Jim;
I think you are presenting ideas just for the sake of getting discussion.:lol:

The facts of evolution HAVE been questioned by prominent scientists and a number of them have removed their support for the theory.
One fact that any person who questions will discover, is that there is NO species on this earth that changes to a different specie.
The lions in Alberta grow longer hair in winter BUT they don't change into polar bears. There is fossil evidence in the ground , and it DID NOT DEMONSTRATE any change in their specie OVER TIME as found by professional archeologists.:ahem:
Darwin , I heard , eventually discounted his own theory.
So thanks anyway for the opportunity of discussion.
GOD BLESS
Hello Douglas,

Just can't get enough of me, huh? :smile:

It's a shame that you have fallen victim to an incorrect belief system.

Christianity has many problems. Creationism is a scientific outcast. I think talkorgins is probably the most thorough site on this topic.

But I’ve left that behind a long time ago. Really, all it takes to refute Christianity is logic.

I’m not saying it’s irrational to be a Christian. Once you are exposed to the counter-arguments, though, it becomes irrational to be a Christian.

My specialty is heaven and hell. Anytime, anywhere.

Again, my condolences on your current belief system. That’s all the time that I have for this post.

Jim

[Douglas Firth]

Thanks for the joke, but I am interested in learning something that is real.:lol:
The ignorance...the cultism simply tries to enforce it.


Just so you know, scientists now have an Alberta lion in captivity, and after keeping it in a snow and ice filled cage, and feeding it baby seals for 2 years, it has turned about half way into a polar bear.

They estimate it will be a total polar bear sometime in 2008.

[Douglas Firth]

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. The only sad thing is when someone thinks they know it all and are unwilling to learn. That is the problem with most young people.
They do superficial research, not studying ideas that disagree with their opinion.
And I am not one of the young people in years , but thank God my mind is still working and I am willing to learn and discuss any topic.
So if you can provide research results from several qualified authorities to support your opinion outside of internet geeks, I will study those and consider what is true.
I DO have a sense of humour though, so joke all you want.

[Chazzman]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org


Dear Jim:

I could give you a hundred reasons for being a Christian, but I would be wasting my breath / time because none of them would do you any good.

Until you come to the place in your life where you can feel your 'mortality'...really understand that you are going to die...and understand that you will have to answer to God why you refused to believe in his only Son Jesus Christ...will you understand the importance of becoming a 'Catholic.' ( I said 'Catholic', the 'true' faith and church of Jesus Christ.)

Your problem is simple.

You do not fear God.

You say you don't believe in hell. That's too bad.

You see, it doesn't really matter what you believe.
It doesn't really matter what I believe. ( Because what we believe...doesn't change a damn thing!)

All that matters...is what God says.

The bible is God's word...and it says there 'IS' a lake of fire...of everlasting torment...apart from God...and that is hell.

God can do many things...but there are 3 things God cannot do.

One of the things God cannot do...is lie.

When you say there is no hell, you call God a lier.

Believing in Jesus comes only through faith, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

But you don't want faith...you want understanding. Sorry. It doesn't happen that way.

I only have 2 suggestions for you, otherwise...this is little/no hope for your soul.

Say this simple prayer for 30 days daily, from 'YOUR HEART'...and really mean it: " Jesus, help me with my unbelief. Jesus, reveal yourself to me."

If you mean it...He will reveal himself to you.

Otherwise, my lost friend, I would go live it up...indulge in everything that fills your senses. Party hardy!

Cause where your headed...they ain't no partying!

I'll be praying you make the right choice.

The Chazzman

( Here's a bonus for ya...cause I'm feeling charitable. One of the reasons they call it the kingdom of darkness...is because those people that are in it...don't even know they're in it! But now you know!)

[Jim E.]

Chazzman,

I loved your post! You broke up your thoughts nicely, and were easy to read.
Are you playing a joke, or was that a heartfelt post?

Let's say you're for real.

I'll take hard, cold logic over unsupported faith any day. My heaven/hell challenge is always open, but you must start the thread.

[Keith Rex]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

The trouble is that Atheists do not know or do not want to know how unsolid the evidence is for evolution. Lack of evidence for Evolution though is no reason to be a Christian. Just because Evolution is untrue does not make Christianity true.

[Jim E.]

The trouble is that Atheists do not know or do not want to know how unsolid the evidence is for evolution. Lack of evidence for Evolution though is no reason to be a Christian. Just because Evolution is untrue does not make Christianity true.
Keith, you are up a creek with no paddle. I'm going down the creek, with a spare paddle, and a life preserver. Evolution tipped me off that something was amiss with Christianity. I've since found more lethal arguments. Watch yourself.

[Keith Rex]

Jim, most people do not know anything at all about the Evolution debate. I am an experienced Biologist and well versed in the History of Science. It is a very interesting matter, but it is hardly a popular one so it cannot have any influence on anyone not being a Christian. However the greatest reason for people rejecting Christianty is The Church. The Church is profoundly authoratatian and anti-democratic and really turns people away- particularly if they like Christainity. However if you look at what the Bible has to say about early Christianity it was profoundly Democratic. It did not last long did it? But the Roman State Religion took it over and Paganised it.
But as to whether Evolution is true or false it has nothing to do with Christainty at all.

[Jim E.]

But as to whether Evolution is true or false it has nothing to do with Christainty at all.
This deserves an obnoxious smiley, but I will restrain myself. Barely.

[Keith Johnson]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

1. I am a Christian

2. I expect I am like the vast majority in the world who like me believe in evolution; I haven't actually evaluated the evidence for evolution, since that would require me to be a PhD in biology. I take it for granted that the experts who have evaluated it know what they're talking about.

3. There is a decent biblical argument in favor of universal salvation in Christ; I lean toward that view.

4. My reason for being a Christian? Not because of any arguments, although there are good arguments for Christianity. I am a Christian because I felt moved to experiment with Christianity, and my experiences during prayer and worship continue to convince me Christ is Lord.

your friend
Keith

[Carpedm9587]

1. I am a Christian

2. I expect I am like the vast majority in the world who like me believe in evolution; I haven't actually evaluated the evidence for evolution, since that would require me to be a PhD in biology. I take it for granted that the experts who have evaluated it know what they're talking about.

3. There is a decent biblical argument in favor of universal salvation in Christ; I lean toward that view.

4. My reason for being a Christian? Not because of any arguments, although there are good arguments for Christianity. I am a Christian because I felt moved to experiment with Christianity, and my experiences during prayer and worship continue to convince me Christ is Lord.

your friend
Keith

You know, Keith -I may not share your faith - but I like your style! :cheers:

[Carpedm9587]

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant....


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. (Thomas Jefferson)


Don't know why - it was the first thing that came to mind when I read the first sentence of your post. No criticism implied - just thought I'd share it.

[Jim E.]

2. I expect I am like the vast majority in the world who like me believe in evolution; I haven't actually evaluated the evidence for evolution, since that would require me to be a PhD in biology. I take it for granted that the experts who have evaluated it know what they're talking about.
One of those rare internet moments where I have positive sentiment for a Christian post.



3. There is a decent biblical argument in favor of universal salvation in Christ; I lean toward that view.
Er, that's one way to look at it!



4. My reason for being a Christian? Not because of any arguments, although there are good arguments for Christianity. I am a Christian because I felt moved to experiment with Christianity, and my experiences during prayer and worship continue to convince me Christ is Lord.
Life is too short to waste on that stuff. Trust reason, logic, and biblical scholarship. Or do it your way. Whatever.



your friend
Keith
You don't even know me!

[Keith Rex]

You know, Keith -I may not share your faith - but I like your style! :cheers:
Put your faith in experts - and die! The one thing you can be sure about experts is that sooner or later they will be proved to be wrong.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Keith, you are up a creek with no paddle. I'm going down the creek, with a spare paddle, and a life preserver. Evolution tipped me off that something was amiss with Christianity. I've since found more lethal arguments. Watch yourself.

Unfortunately Jim is all paddle and no canoe.

[$cirisme]

This thread is still alive and kicking? :eh:

[Jim E.]

Put your faith in experts - and die! The one thing you can be sure about experts is that sooner or later they will be proved to be wrong. Well, that completely changes my attitude about Christianity, Keith. :huh:

[Keith Johnson]

2. I expect I am like the vast majority in the world who like me believe in evolution; I haven't actually evaluated the evidence for evolution, since that would require me to be a PhD in biology. I take it for granted that the experts who have evaluated it know what they're talking about.

One of those rare internet moments where I have positive sentiment for a Christian
post.

On the other hand, I often have positive sentiments for atheist posts. You should be more like me:-)



3. There is a decent biblical argument in favor of universal salvation in Christ; I lean toward that view.

Er, that's one way to look at it!

Hmmm?


[quote=kj] 4. My reason for being a Christian? Not because of any arguments, although there are good arguments for Christianity. I am a Christian because I felt moved to experiment with Christianity, and my experiences during prayer and worship continue to convince me Christ is Lord.

Life is too short to waste on that stuff. Trust reason, logic, and biblical scholarship. Or do it your way. Whatever.

You pose a false dichotomy here. Trusting logic, reason or your reading of the bible requires you to be able to recognize the truth; if you can't recognize the truth you can't even start the reasoning process, nor can know when the process is finished. That's all I have done wrt my religoous experience: recognized the truth. When you look at an apple in your hand, you don't engage in a logical argument that leads to the conclusion that there's an apple in your hand--you just look and see the apple. IMy recognition of the truth of the Gospel is analogous.


[quote=kj]your friend
Keith

You don't even know me!

That doesn't stop me from being friendly. You don't have to accept my offer if you don't want to, but I will remain friendly.

your friend
keith

[Keith Rex]

Well, that completely changes my attitude about Christianity, Keith. :huh:

Do you believe in God or do you believe in the experts who claim to know all about God?

[Jim E.]

Do you believe in God
As an atheist, I'd say, uh, no.


or do you believe in the experts who claim to know all about God?
Experts, hacks, experts, hacks. Let's see. I think I'll pick door #1.

[gexv8]

If for any reason why I do believe in god it is at the very least that we can never know everything about everything. One can like to believe that we know enough, but they are really only fooling themselves. This is not to say that this is proof that there is a god, but proving a negative is alot harder than proving a positive. From my point of view the bible was given to us from god. Of course some would argue with me on that. But, the point is it was given not discovered like we do with science. Given from god to us becasue we could probably never truly know our origins or what not after life. These areas of life while we try are just knowledge that is unobtainable by our ways (e.g. science).

[Jim E.]

If for any reason why I do believe in god it is at the very least that we can never know everything about everything. That doesn’t sound like you believe at all. Maybe you just want Christianity to be true. Or maybe something more sinister is going on here. I dunno.

[God_is_personal]

Hi, Jim...I'm Bill...nice to meet you >

My main reason > I wasn't sure what God wanted; I offered myself to God, for Him to decide; and I experience He has turned me into a Christian....with plenty more for me to discover how He will have this to be. I experience One who is very unbelievably wonderful in love very pure and pleasant, and personal.

God is personal, not just distant. But I can be on the wrong wavelength because of my own stupidity and ego stuff and just trying to USE people. But He "is love"; so He's not into just using people or just judging them.

So when I am in my selfish using stuff and self-righteously criticizing people who don't give me what I want...of course I'm going to miss out on how I could be personally enjoying the Lord Jesus in His Heaven-quality goodness of love...which, at times, I do experience...better than any drug or alcohol or female pleasure I ever have had. And He does me more good than any human ever has done me, better than I have TRIED to do for myself.

So, He is my Proof. I'm satisfied...but obviously improvable...in comparison to how He is loving and helping with me. How He is loving personally is my Standard. I am V-E-R-Y improvable.

[Jim E.]

Well, Bill, in my opinion Christianity does harm as well as good. Would you want to know if Christianity was false?

What you are describing are religious feelings. The feelings are very real. The “god” behind them is not.

I noticed a few negative comments about yourself. In my opinion, this is an unfortunate effect of Christianity.

I have enjoyed life much more as a non-Christian. I wish you the best. Thanks for taking the time to post.

[BurningBush--U]

most so called christians are not

they preach a false hell

they preach a false salvation

they preach a false just about everything

but then again Christ warns us of these MANY who come in Christs name... seems there were problems back then yen it was Master Christos Himself speaking, as they all wanted their own version of God instead of the truth...

There is NO eternal Burning Hell.
Period.

Anyone that spends the time to investigate will see.

God will allow you to believe a lie and can if it warrants even LIE to you.

You must first have a love for the absolute truth no matter the costs, then after that you have a chance to find it.

As far as evolution crap, go start a thread on that.

It's as bogus as a three dollar bill.

Many claim Christ and claim many things in his name and yet refuse to
do as his will, and they will pay the price.

You can't hold all of group X is wrong because of many people that make it up.

Many groups have one truth they cling to, and they reject another group because of many reasons, but truth is truth no matter of whose lips it is uttered from.

Stay in the Bible and study the actual words not just the translated word and have a hunger for the truth, and then you can be rejected by the establishment church babylonian system, and have opportunity for growth in the word.

[Carpedm9587]

Put your faith in experts - and die! The one thing you can be sure about experts is that sooner or later they will be proved to be wrong.


And the alternative is...?

[maudman]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org


I'm a christian and I believe in evolution. And what is helll to you. How to you know what hell is. Are you using the definitions of those christians who say they don't believe in evolution.

I think you might want to consider that not all christians have the same message. Nor do they believe in the same things. Not all scientist agree about everything. but down the road some or a few of them will be proven right.

peace

[shunyadragon]

Put your faith in experts - and die! The one thing you can be sure about experts is that sooner or later they will be proved to be wrong.

This is likely true of the ex-spurts from both the theists and atheist/agnostic side of the imaginary fence.

[shunyadragon]

most so called christians are not

This reminds me of the game of 'musical chairs'. Is the true Christian the one in the chair or on the floor?


they preach a false hell

they preach a false salvation

they preach a false just about everything

but then again Christ warns us of these MANY who come in Christs name... seems there were problems back then yen it was Master Christos Himself speaking, as they all wanted their own version of God instead of the truth...

There is NO eternal Burning Hell.
Period.

Anyone that spends the time to investigate will see.

God will allow you to believe a lie and can if it warrants even LIE to you.

You must first have a love for the absolute truth no matter the costs, then after that you have a chance to find it.

As far as evolution crap, go start a thread on that.

It's as bogus as a three dollar bill.

Many claim Christ and claim many things in his name and yet refuse to
do as his will, and they will pay the price.

You can't hold all of group X is wrong because of many people that make it up.

Many groups have one truth they cling to, and they reject another group because of many reasons, but truth is truth no matter of whose lips it is uttered from.

Stay in the Bible and study the actual words not just the translated word and have a hunger for the truth, and then you can be rejected by the establishment church babylonian system, and have opportunity for growth in the word.

Many people read the Bible and come up with different conclusions. I would consider your view of condemning everyone else who believes differently as the most suspect. What objective unbiased outside standard would you propose to tell who is right? From my point of view one man's Babylon appears to be another's salvation.

[gexv8]

That doesn’t sound like you believe at all. Maybe you just want Christianity to be true. Or maybe something more sinister is going on here. I dunno.

Then again maybe you want christianity to not be true.

"Would you want to know if Christianity was false?"
Would you want to know if Christianity was true?
How do you think you would feel if you found out christianity was true?
Are you truly looking for any reason to believe whether or not christianity is true?
Do you have any true intention of considering any good reason proposed to you?
In addition to what I said above.
My reason is that my life has gotten better since I became a christian. I used to be pessimistic, lazy, and unmotivated. But, since I accepted Jesus into my heart I have looked at life more optimistically. And I find that optimism is contagious and the conqourer of even the most down of times. If I had not taken that leap of faith I would still be in the same mess as I was before.
Maybe this doesn't sound like a good reason to you? But where do you set the bar?
Why did you ask ths question in the first place?
"Is there any good reasons to be a christian?"
Have you not already effectively answered this question to yourself in your own mind? Thus do you think you have any reason to listen to why we believe what we believe?
Or do you have doubts about your own worldview?
It seems to me your mind is already made up.
Christ's offer of salvation is always there for you as long as you live. It is up to you whether or not to take it.

[Carpedm9587]

This wasn't addressed to me - but since I've been accused now and then of being unclear on what I believe - I figured "what the heck - mighty as well answer it!" :teeth:


"Would you want to know if Christianity was false?"

Would you want to know if Christianity was true?

Yes. As an atheist, I am less concerned about it being false than it being true. I have already come to the conclusion that the core tenet of christianity (that there is a god) is false. Proving Christianity false would only affirm what I already believe. But proving Christianity true would negate what I believe and cause me to believe differently.


How do you think you would feel if you found out christianity was true?

Having been Christian for many years, and a "born again" Christian at that, I would imagine the feelings would be similar to what I last experienced when I thought I was "saved." Euphoria. Joy. A sense of belonging. A different kind of hope. A different kind of peace.


Are you truly looking for any reason to believe whether or not christianity is true?

No, I can't say I am actively looking.


Do you have any true intention of considering any good reason proposed to you?

If I was given good reasons I would consider them. I have to admit that in the past 20 years I have heard a lot of reasons, but none of them have risen to the level of "good." I suspect that would make me look skeptical to you - it does to many Christians. But what is considered a "good reason" by many Christians simply doesn't look like a very good reason to me.


In addition to what I said above.
My reason is that my life has gotten better since I became a christian. I used to be pessimistic, lazy, and unmotivated. But, since I accepted Jesus into my heart I have looked at life more optimistically. And I find that optimism is contagious and the conqourer of even the most down of times. If I had not taken that leap of faith I would still be in the same mess as I was before.

Maybe this doesn't sound like a good reason to you? But where do you set the bar?

It is a good reason if your goal is to be less pessimistic, less lazy, and more motivated and Christian beliefs achieved that for you. These are not things I have ever had a serious long-term problem with. Sure, now and then I slip into one of those places, but it is always for a short time. What I am trying to achieve with my beliefs is a solid grasp of what is true. I would rather not believe and hold on to something that is untrue if I can avoid it. So the "reasons" for believing that I will accept must achieve that goal for me.


Why did you ask ths question in the first place?

"Is there any good reasons to be a christian?"

I can't answer these.


Have you not already effectively answered this question to yourself in your own mind?

Pretty much. There are good reasons to be Christian if christianity achieves a goal a person wants to achieve - like the ones you listed above. So far I have not found good reasons to be Christian is someone has the kind of goal that I have.


Thus do you think you have any reason to listen to why we believe what we believe?

Sure. I am fallible. I am finite. I can be wrong. Listening to what others believe, whether it's about theology, philosophy, science, math, or any other discipline is a way of expanding what I know and testing what I believe. Listening never hurt anyone, AFAICT. :smile:


Or do you have doubts about your own worldview?

By definition - yes. My worldview is to question my worldview - always. To do otherwise is to begin to assume I cannot be wrong. So what I believe I hold "loosely," and I try to be ready to let it go if I find something else that seems more accurate in the future. Obviously I don't sit on my backside waiting to be 100% sure about anything, or I would never get off my backside. So I go through each day with the assumption that the things I believe are true and making decisions on that basis. What other alternative is there?


It seems to me your mind is already made up.
Christ's offer of salvation is always there for you as long as you live. It is up to you whether or not to take it.

And on that note, we will have to agree to disagree. So far, i have not found reasons to be Christian that address my own goals in life and in having beliefs.

Michel

[maudman]

And on that note, we will have to agree to disagree. So far, i have not found reasons to be Christian that address my own goals in life and in having beliefs.

Michel

Hello CarpeDM

This is where the rubber meets the Road. The Christian was called to put away his Goals and take up the Cross. The goals of God are much higher or maybe better said demanding of our self or the denial of self. Living in a social structure that is self serving is in stark contradiction to the Gospel.

What your really saying is that you can't see anything in professed Christianity that say's their goals are any different or higher than yours. This could be true. But that doesn't mean that you really ever had a real Christian experience.

I'm not condemning or anything like that, but really looking at some of the things Christ is saying it is obvious that the new covenant was one that was about service to and for God not ourselves, Paul say's it better than any “we are to be slaves to God and his goals thru Christ”.

The hinge of the entire Gospel is that we can't even begin to imagine the Glory that God is going to bestow on the genuine Christian or those faithful till the end of this life or world which ever comes first. The Gospel doesn't condemn mankind but is a message of hope.

We in essence make Gods goals ours because God set a precedent on how he would reward or justify his children, “why he loves certain individuals”. Remember the Father searches the hearts of men and then calls those whom he has chosen to be Heirs according to the Promise he made with Abraham. It’s natural selection to the Core. We have our part to do and that sets the precedent for God the father.

When a man within himself seeks to understand or sets his heart to understand God the Father responds and works with that individual. God then delivers him unto Christ or they are drawn to the message of the Gospel. It’s what it means to be called or have a calling. Salvation of the Lord is eternal life with the Lord in the temple he is building; it was only part of the eternal life that was for all mankind. The cross killed two birds so to speak with one stone. The man who was faithful period, “to any religious belief was in fact faithful to God” and the cross was for the faithful all men everywhere. But for those who believe in the cross of Christ meant salvation in the temple and positions needed to be filled.

As Christ said “”In my Fathers house there are many mansions I go to prepare a place for You”” How big is Christ’s Fathers house well the earth will be maid into Christ’s a footstool.

In Gods house there are many religions and Christ went to prepare a place for a new religion. Because Christ bowed down and served the Father “””of his own will””” The Father Glorified him and those who take up his cross and remain faithful till the end shall also be Glorified. That why we become Christian.

Peace Carpe

[God_is_personal]

from shunyadragon >
............"From my point of view
.....................one man's Babylon appears to be another's salvation."

Yeah, kind of like how "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

Michel (Carpedm9587) is an atheist, but he has written that he reads the Bible and sees what he CAN get out of each thing he reads; but he will skip what doesn't do anything for him...if I understand you right, Michel.

This is "like" what I do in reading the Bible. Except with the Bible I consider that God can use ANY part of the Bible to do me good. And while I am reading different posts including atheistic messages and antagonistic responses to my "offerings"...there can be something there for me to get, even if I don't buy into every bit of what someone wrote. First, I do BEST, I find, to look for what I can get out of it...not first looking for how to judge and to come up with something for rebutting > "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (in James 1:19).

[Gaytheist]

The best reason for being a Christian is that it gives me better odds than being an Atheist.

Say Atheism is wrong, as a Christian it just means no afterlife, as it does for the Atheist.

Say Christianity is correct, then the Atheist goes to hell and Christians have eternal life.

So, being a Christian is a good way to cover your bases. Being an Atheist does no good whatsoever.
Pascal's Wager, anyone?
OTOH, if Islam or any of the other thousands of religions in the world turn out to be correct, we're both doomed. Instead of playing the odds and being persuaded by fear, how about trying to figure out what's true?

[Carpedm9587]

Hello CarpeDM

This is where the rubber meets the Road. The Christian was called to put away his Goals and take up the Cross. The goals of God are much higher or maybe better said demanding of our self or the denial of self. Living in a social structure that is self serving is in stark contradiction to the Gospel.

What your really saying is that you can't see anything in professed Christianity that say's their goals are any different or higher than yours. This could be true. But that doesn't mean that you really ever had a real Christian experience.

I'm not condemning or anything like that, but really looking at some of the things Christ is saying it is obvious that the new covenant was one that was about service to and for God not ourselves, Paul say's it better than any “we are to be slaves to God and his goals thru Christ”.

The hinge of the entire Gospel is that we can't even begin to imagine the Glory that God is going to bestow on the genuine Christian or those faithful till the end of this life or world which ever comes first. The Gospel doesn't condemn mankind but is a message of hope.

We in essence make Gods goals ours because God set a precedent on how he would reward or justify his children, “why he loves certain individuals”. Remember the Father searches the hearts of men and then calls those whom he has chosen to be Heirs according to the Promise he made with Abraham. It’s natural selection to the Core. We have our part to do and that sets the precedent for God the father.

When a man within himself seeks to understand or sets his heart to understand God the Father responds and works with that individual. God then delivers him unto Christ or they are drawn to the message of the Gospel. It’s what it means to be called or have a calling. Salvation of the Lord is eternal life with the Lord in the temple he is building; it was only part of the eternal life that was for all mankind. The cross killed two birds so to speak with one stone. The man who was faithful period, “to any religious belief was in fact faithful to God” and the cross was for the faithful all men everywhere. But for those who believe in the cross of Christ meant salvation in the temple and positions needed to be filled.

As Christ said “”In my Fathers house there are many mansions I go to prepare a place for You”” How big is Christ’s Fathers house well the earth will be maid into Christ’s a footstool.

In Gods house there are many religions and Christ went to prepare a place for a new religion. Because Christ bowed down and served the Father “””of his own will””” The Father Glorified him and those who take up his cross and remain faithful till the end shall also be Glorified. That why we become Christian.

Peace Carpe

Maud -

I can certainly appreciate your perspective, Maud. But I have some serious doubts that anyone ever lets go of their goals. The destitute person looks to be free of destitution. The person in pain seeks to be free of pain. The person at the end of their rope seeks more rope. The person with nothing to live for either ends their life or seeks for a reason to live.

People turn to christianity for a reason, I have found. They have a need. They have a desire. And Christianity fills that purpose for them. I have encountered many many people to give testimonials about how Christianity turned their lives around. I hear many about how Christianity redeemed them from some horror, some abyss, some heartache.

Very, very seldom have I heard someone say to me - "I had no specific need. I was looking around to see what was true, and I finally came to the realization that what Christianity professes is true and there was no way to deny it."

That's not about Christianity, per se. It's about human nature. We turn to what best serves our needs. It's a very natural turn of events.

Michel

[Carpedm9587]

from shunyadragon >
............"From my point of view
.....................one man's Babylon appears to be another's salvation."

Yeah, kind of like how "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

Michel (Carpedm9587) is an atheist, but he has written that he reads the Bible and sees what he CAN get out of each thing he reads; but he will skip what doesn't do anything for him...if I understand you right, Michel.

This is "like" what I do in reading the Bible. Except with the Bible I consider that God can use ANY part of the Bible to do me good. And while I am reading different posts including atheistic messages and antagonistic responses to my "offerings"...there can be something there for me to get, even if I don't buy into every bit of what someone wrote. First, I do BEST, I find, to look for what I can get out of it...not first looking for how to judge and to come up with something for rebutting > "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (in James 1:19).

That's a pretty accurate portrayal, Bill. I still read the Christian bible, as well as other "sacred" texts. My approach to them is to see how they resonate with me and what I can draw from them. So the story of Job is, to me, a story about trust. I don't think Job was a real person, nor do I think there was a bet between a real god and a real satan. What the story tells me is that, sometimes, we have no recourse but to fall back on trust.

I approach it much the same way I approach TWeb or any other writing - I look for what speaks to me and what I can learn from. What I learn is not always what the author intended - but that is inconsequential to me.

Michel

[maudman]

Maud -

I can certainly appreciate your perspective, Maud. But I have some serious doubts that anyone ever lets go of their goals. The destitute person looks to be free of destitution. The person in pain seeks to be free of pain. The person at the end of their rope seeks more rope. The person with nothing to live for either ends their life or seeks for a reason to live.

People turn to christianity for a reason, I have found. They have a need. They have a desire. And Christianity fills that purpose for them. I have encountered many many people to give testimonials about how Christianity turned their lives around. I hear many about how Christianity redeemed them from some horror, some abyss, some heartache.

Very, very seldom have I heard someone say to me - "I had no specific need. I was looking around to see what was true, and I finally came to the realization that what Christianity professes is true and there was no way to deny it."

That's not about Christianity, per se. It's about human nature. We turn to what best serves our needs. It's a very natural turn of events.

Michel

Hello Carpedm

Your Post is true. You are correct about why many people come to the Christian Faith. At least that is the way I see it most of the time myself.

I attended a protestant church for many years, My wife is protestant. Most of the time from my experience in such churches there is an alter call that plays on the emotions and anxieties that occur in peoples life. Sermons that are geared towards sin and eternal death. Not all are baptized for that reason but I would say in the US many are.

Psychology definitely plays a part in modern conversion techniques of Shepard’s now a days. I’m not totally convinced it’s what we see in the bible though. The social elite seeking the Christian faith is told to shed his worldly possessions and the poor and oppressed which made up about 90 percent of the population looked for hope in the Gospel message of their time. Of course being born in the lower social structure meant a life of social oppression. Being told that a person in such a situation had more in common with Christ or shared a similar cross seems to be Paul’s message. I think you can see this also. I guess that’s why Christ said not many rich men will enter the kingdom of heaven.

I once asked myself? I wonder what it would be like in hell. I thought to myself and said well there would have to be Murder, Greed, hate, rape, death on unbelievable scales, pride, envy, jealousy, abuse, complete lack of care for fellow man, and worse no hope of getting out. Then I came to my senses and realized where I was.

Faith has many strange adherents I once heard and I think it is true. Christianity is one that has many interpretations, I guess because many come to it from different angles.


Peace Carpe

PS Thanks for the reply! I don’t get many.

[Keith Johnson]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Hi Jim

I have a couple of comments; after that I'll give you my reasons.

1. I don't see why evolution is a reason to be an atheist. There is no conflict between theism and evolution. There's not even a conflict between any essential Christian doctrines (see any of the traditional creeds) and evolution.

2. About hell; so if everlasting damnation were not part of Christianity, you'd have lost one of your two biggest reasons to oppose Christianity? Suppose Christianity taught "annihilationism", or the eventual salvation of everyone. I mention this because IMO there is virtually no biblical support for the idea that anyone ends up forever damned. There are passages that might be read as that some people will not be saved, but those passages are perfectly consistent with annihilationism. The exception is AFAIK the book of Revelation, but that book is so filled with symbolic language that IMO it is a mistake to derive a precise picture of what happens when people did.

Here's why I am a Christian. These reasons might be personal to me; I am not arguing that you should be convinced by my reasons.

1. I believe that God exists. This seems obviously true to me. I could offer arguments for this belief, but they would rest on premises that you probably wouldn't agree to.

2. I believe that God's character is like the way Christ is described by Christianity, that is, Christianity says Christ is God and the way is describes Christ matches what I believe to be true about God.

3. My person experiences during prayer and worship lead me to believe that Christ is who he says he is.

4. This one is tougher to articulate for me. Consider Islam. As I understand it, Muslims believe that God weighs the good we do against the bad we do, and if the scale tips one way we go to paradise, the other way we go to the fire. But how much good is enough to get to paradise? If any percentage of good less than 100% is sufficient, well, the required batting averge seems arbitrary to me. It seems to me that if good behavior is what it takes to get to heaven, we'd have to be 100% good to get to heaven. This is of course impossible. But Christianity alone among religious provides a solution to this problem that (a) recognizes that the wages of sin are death (to use a familiar phrase) and (b) gives a way for us fallen humans to be saved without having to be 100% perfect--Christ's sacrifice cleans us up, as it were.

5. I find the arguments to the effect that "it is unlikely the Resurrection story would be what is is unless it is true" at least somewhat convincing.

your friend
keith

[Keith Rex]

Jim, you have absolutely no idea. Being a Christian has totally zero to do with any Scientific or pseudo Scientific theory be they right or wrong.

There are a great many reasons you seem to overlook. Belief in God has little or nothing to do with it. It is not a matter Christians give serious thought to. It is more about not being an Atheist/Communist.

Perhaps the greatest reason for people being Christians is the extreme unpleasantness of Atheists. People say - "well the Christian story seems to be pretty silly, but Christains are nice people unlike these Atheists and Muslims who really scare me.

If you ask, Why not just be nothing if you find the mythos unconvincing? Well we humans are social animals and every human institution is pretty silly when you examine it carefully but we still join because we do not want to be hermits. And Christian Culture has a lot going for it.

What do Atheists have to offer other then their rabid hatred? Where are their beautiful Cathedrals, fine music? If you forget about the history you would see that Christainity is one of the most beautiful things in the World.

[Carpedm9587]

Jim, you have absolutely no idea. Being a Christian has totally zero to do with any Scientific or pseudo Scientific theory be they right or wrong.

There are a great many reasons you seem to overlook. Belief in God has little or nothing to do with it. It is not a matter Christians give serious thought to. It is more about not being an Atheist/Communist.

Perhaps the greatest reason for people being Christians is the extreme unpleasantness of Atheists. People say - "well the Christian story seems to be pretty silly, but Christains are nice people unlike these Atheists and Muslims who really scare me.

If you ask, Why not just be nothing if you find the mythos unconvincing? Well we humans are social animals and every human institution is pretty silly when you examine it carefully but we still join because we do not want to be hermits. And Christian Culture has a lot going for it.

What do Atheists have to offer other then their rabid hatred? Where are their beautiful Cathedrals, fine music? If you forget about the history you would see that Christainity is one of the most beautiful things in the World.

Rex -

You, like many people, fall into a fairly commonly found trap: painting all people who differ from you with the same brush. I suspect you would quickly take exception if I made a statement like, "Christians are close-minded, nonsensical, and committed to being blind in their beliefs." You would probably object because you and I both know it is not true. SOME Christians might meet this description, but it's not all and it's not even most.

Yet you persist in making comments like, "perhaps the greatest reason for people being Christians is the extreme unpleasantness of Atheists" and "what do Atheists have to offer other then their rabid hatred."

This atheist is not unpleasant, maintains normal social discourse with people of all faiths, and doesn't rabidly hate anything except brussel sprouts. I am human, a neighbor, a father, a son, a friend, a husband, and a teacher. I put on my pants much the same way you do, like a neat home, mow my lawn with the best of them, and support the local community in many ways.

I am social, but I don't choose to join church communities because I do not share the beliefs. So my community is my family, my circle of friends, the local chess and book clubs, my colleagues, and a handful of old friends. As for my cathedrals, one of the is sitting next to me and I'm going to go teach him a little math so his spire doesn't cave in! Then I'm going to shift my attention to my other cathedral and go see if I can learn something! :wink:

Michel

[Aletheia]

and doesn't rabidly hate anything except brussel sprouts.

They're not bad if they are covered in a couple of inches of cheese sauce. :smile:




:wink:

[Carpedm9587]

They're not bad if they are covered in a couple of inches of cheese sauce. :smile:




:wink:

Someone definitely needs to be monitoring your diet. :teeth:

[Jim E.]

Threats and bullying. Or maybe unable to admit doubt.

I took a look at the recent posts. A whole lot of Christian talking. Please try to limit your comments to one or two main points. Or talk, talk, talk. Just don’t expect me to take my valuable time to reply. Remember, I believe I only have one life. And I’m not getting any younger. I like participating here. Not spending hours on end here.

[Keith Johnson]

Threats and bullying. Or maybe unable to admit doubt.

I took a look at the recent posts. A whole lot of Christian talking. Please try to limit your comments to one or two main points. Or talk, talk, talk. Just don’t expect me to take my valuable time to reply. Remember, I believe I only have one life. And I’m not getting any younger. I like participating here. Not spending hours on end here.

Hi Jim

I numbered my points for convenience. Might you respond to a couple of them?

your friend
Keith

[Jim E.]

1. I don't see why evolution is a reason to be an atheist. There is no conflict between theism and evolution. There's not even a conflict between any essential Christian doctrines (see any of the traditional creeds) and evolution.
Well, conflicting opinions already! Good, loving God. Violent evolution. You at least see why some see a conflict, no?



2. About hell; so if everlasting damnation were not part of Christianity, you'd have lost one of your two biggest reasons to oppose Christianity? Suppose Christianity taught "annihilationism", or the eventual salvation of everyone. I mention this because IMO there is virtually no biblical support for the idea that anyone ends up forever damned. There are passages that might be read as that some people will not be saved, but those passages are perfectly consistent with annihilationism. The exception is AFAIK the book of Revelation, but that book is so filled with symbolic language that IMO it is a mistake to derive a precise picture of what happens when people did. Hell is a big problem. Yes, Christianity would be much less offensive without it. Revelation is well, rather descriptive. Even annihilationism doesn’t solve the problem. Some go to heaven and others don’t? What’s so awful about your God that people would reject heaven?

[Xavier]

[...] What’s so awful about your God that people would reject heaven?

I think you can answer that one yourself. It's obvious that you have rejected him.

[Jim E.]

I think you can answer that one yourself. It's obvious that you have rejected him. Kind of hard to reject something that doesn’t exist.

[Xavier]

Kind of hard to reject something that doesn’t exist.

Then why are you asking about what makes him "so awful"? Oh wait, you really are that dense.

[Jim E.]

Then why are you asking about what makes him "so awful"? Oh wait, you really are that dense.Xavee – I’m talking in terms that you can understand. Upon examination, Christianity fails.

[Xavier]

Xavee – I’m talking in terms that you can understand. Upon examination, Christianity fails.
Utter nonsense... These are the only words that you are capable of understanding and spiting back up in a pathetic attempt to look certain and knowledgeable.

Watch as I refute your entire post in one fell swoop:
Upon examination, Jim Eisele fails.

[Jim E.]

Oh my. I’m withholding most of my ammunition.

Hey, it’s your life. Cyberblast away. I think you’ll find the gratification short-lived.

[Xavier]

Oh my. I’m withholding most of my ammunition.

I'm sure that such an agile mind has much to offer... :ahem:


Hey, it’s your life. Cyberblast away. I think you’ll find the gratification short-lived.

It is my life... I perfer not to waste it on people like you... You simply are not worth it.

[Jezz]

Oh my. I’m withholding most of my ammunition.
Sad to see that some people haven't changed in the last three years...

[Jim E.]

Sad to see that some people haven't changed in the last three years... No need to use a club for arguments made out of air.

[Jezz]

No need to use a club for arguments made out of air.
Well, at least that explains why noone's hit you over the head with a club yet.

[God_is_personal]

God keeps bringing me back to sweetness very fragrant, nicely quiet in love caring for all people...no thanks to me.

Or I would just stink right on in paranoia, self-righteous one-way arguing in my imagination, immoral or perverted stuff, depression, crybabying about not being accepted the way I want.

But God's power of love can easily and breezily and beautifully make this junk of Satan evaporate in moments. It's nice. I l-i-k-e God.

[Jim E.]

I l-i-k-e God. I like myself. And I’m a lot more real than “god.”

[Keith Rex]

Rex -

You, like many people, fall into a fairly commonly found trap: painting all people who differ from you with the same brush. I suspect you would quickly take exception if I made a statement like, "Christians are close-minded, nonsensical, and committed to being blind in their beliefs." You would probably object because you and I both know it is not true. SOME Christians might meet this description, but it's not all and it's not even most.

Yet you persist in making comments like, "perhaps the greatest reason for people being Christians is the extreme unpleasantness of Atheists" and "what do Atheists have to offer other then their rabid hatred."

This atheist is not unpleasant, maintains normal social discourse with people of all faiths, and doesn't rabidly hate anything except brussel sprouts. I am human, a neighbor, a father, a son, a friend, a husband, and a teacher. I put on my pants much the same way you do, like a neat home, mow my lawn with the best of them, and support the local community in many ways.

I am social, but I don't choose to join church communities because I do not share the beliefs. So my community is my family, my circle of friends, the local chess and book clubs, my colleagues, and a handful of old friends. As for my cathedrals, one of the is sitting next to me and I'm going to go teach him a little math so his spire doesn't cave in! Then I'm going to shift my attention to my other cathedral and go see if I can learn something! :wink:

Michel

In my experience I find that most Atheists are very unpleasant and invariably Gay and I find Gays intolerable. They are vicious lewd and have no respect for the great majority of the worlds population. I also find Christain Gays very nasty selfish people. I also find that these Atheists who are in the majority insist that if a person is not Gay they cannot be an Atheist, But you have a lot more choice with Christians. they are not all Gay.

[God_is_personal]

About Keith Rex's post #989 above >

Keith, you're KIDDING!! I'm homophobic, straight Bible, and I have been harrassed and propositioned and hunted down by gay gangs and roving individuals on the streets of Boston. But not all gays treat me like this. There are ones who act very friendly and discreet and considerate.
...(A van of guys stopped one day to "ask directions". Did I know where there were any homosexuals? "Wherever YOU go, there will be homosexuals," I said.)
...But if someone is ACTING like the person is not nasty,
............. this does not necessarily mean the person isn't nasty
........................................................................................d-e-e-p-e-r.
.
And yes...ones could be doing a "good cop, bad cop" sort of thing...seeing which way might work on me. May be the nasties are trying to make the nice actors look good. But I'm sweetly loving with gays, since Jesus wants us to love ALL people. And yet, ones can have a way of not staying with me long, even if I'm sweetly kind with them. "May be" kindness is not what ones want...IF they aren't going to be able to USE me for what they want.
.
"'For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?'" Jesus says in Matthew 5:46.

[Keith Rex]

bill78: Hope you are not kidding me? Of course they do not all want to kill me on sight, but the "nice" ones have no sympathy for me or disapproval of the actions of the majority.

I think the only thing that kindness and love of Gays will get you is AIDS. They show no respect for the majority who are not Gay.

If you were all Bible you might notice that Jesus was not as inclusive as they claim. He did not teach Blessed are the Gays and that we should love them. He did not contradict the rest of the Bible like he did in dietary matters. He did not specifically condemn a lot of unwholesome things, but this does not mean he approved of them!

I have heard of a few Gays who try to control their lusts and live chaste. They have a heavy cross to bear, but all the other Gays just want to kill them as traitors!

[Jim E.]

My attitude towards gay people changed when I rejected Christianity.

[Keith Rex]

Jim: You say your attitude changed, but do not mentione the dirsction nadwhy it changed? Did you reject Christianity when you discovered that so many Christains were secret Gays? Why else would they be so keen on choir boys and fancy vestments? But please be more specific as I would like to know.

[Carpedm9587]

In my experience I find that most Atheists are very unpleasant and invariably Gay and I find Gays intolerable. They are vicious lewd and have no respect for the great majority of the worlds population. I also find Christain Gays very nasty selfish people. I also find that these Atheists who are in the majority insist that if a person is not Gay they cannot be an Atheist, But you have a lot more choice with Christians. they are not all Gay.

Keith -

I don't know where your experience comes from, Keith, but it is pretty badly twisted. I travel extensively and meet a lot of people. I have never seen a link between homosexuals and atheism. In fact, most of my homosexual friends are members of a church and believe in a god - and most of my atheist friends are heterosexuals. I have no idea where you live or how you came to your experience. I suspect it is largely from the media or some fairly extreme Christian websites.

And I have NEVER heard a single atheist claim that if a person isn't gay, they can't be atheist. I am not gay - and I am very much an atheist.

Somewhere along the line, my sad friend, you picked up some very nasty hatreds and bigotries. I hope you find your way out of them. There are some very good people who are atheist, or gay, or both. You do those people a great disservice and a great harm.

To be honest, I don't have much expectation that this post will penetrate or have an impact. I suspect you are so deeply seated in your phobia and hatred that finding a way out is almost impossible. But one can always hope...

Michel

[SteveF]

I don't know where your experience comes from, Keith, but it is pretty badly twisted.

It comes from either:

a) he is a troll and not really serious
b) he is genuinely mentally ill

[Jim E.]

Jim: You say your attitude changed, but do not mentione the dirsction nadwhy it changed? Did you reject Christianity when you discovered that so many Christains were secret Gays? Why else would they be so keen on choir boys and fancy vestments? But please be more specific as I would like to know.Post Christianity it was easy to accept gayness has a physiological origin.

[Keith Rex]

Carped: Your view is typical of both Atheists and most Christains on Forums. The only difference is that the Gay Christians avoid potty talk.

Steve: Now this is the typical Atheist response. If you are not Gay then you are memtally ill and should be killed.

Jim: Why could you not accept that it was a birth defect when you were a Christain?

[Carpedm9587]

Carped: Your view is typical of both Atheists and most Christains on Forums. The only difference is that the Gay Christians avoid potty talk.


Surprise, surprise, Keith - this is an atheist that avoids "potty talk." At least, I avoid it pretty much to the same degree the Christians on this site do. And it has nothing to do with this site - I do so in life as well.

Enought said, Keith. Either you are a troll (I'm not sure that's true), you are mentally ill (I hate to think that might be true), or you are just eccentric as heck. I favor the latter. Be that as it may, we don't have much to say to one another. I'll leave you be.

Michel

[Jim E.]

Jim: Why could you not accept that it was a birth defect when you were a Christain? Christians view that as moral failure. My hat is off to Christians with a more tolerant view. At the same time, a more tolerant view is not biblical.

[burgy]

Does anyone have any reasons for being a Christian?
To be fair, my biggest two reasons for being an atheist are evolution and the
infinite cruelty of the concept of hell. Christians just don't know how solid the
evidence for evolution is. And I feel sorry for folks who believe in hell.

But, if anyone has a good reason or two to be a Christian, please speak up.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Hi Jim:

Long time buddy.

Yeah -- I have good reasons.

They are on my website.

1. Evolution poses no problems I can see.
2. The concept of hell is not essential to a Christian's belief.

I suspect the god you don't believe in is also one I don't believe in!

Cheers

Burgy