Liberal Religionists: Enablers of Fundies?

[dettus]

Just admit it, it's bronze age garbage.

Also, there is no god.

Welcome to reality, have a nice day.

[WishboneDawn]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

yes, I just wanted the last word

And yes, I know by admitting that I wanted the last word I doomed myself to never getting the last word.

[Ubercat]

Actually, it's a bunch of books. Well, letters too. And geneologies. Too many goddamn geneologies.

Actually it describes stories written by people who've attributted those actions to him. And since they wrote the stories it might be of more interest to figure out why they attributted those things to him then run about screaming, "EVIIIIIIL!!"
Really? When?

Actually, it shouldn't be. It should be adressed and discussed. Glossing it over is about as useful as the, "EVIIIIIIL!!!" tactic.

Are you really, seriously willing to make a case that the whole bible, every bit of it is a, "primitive, barbaric, disgusting, pathetic mess"? You forgot, "EVIIIIIL!"
...
...Oh..Me? You mean me? Sorry, see I've never asserted anything of the sort, never been a glosser so, of course, I thought you must have been refering to someone else.
So I'm not in any position to judge what's valid but you're entirely within your rights to judge what's crap. Hmmm. Doesn't quite seem very consistent to me some how.

Now, stop playing Mermaid Man to my Barnacle Boy.

With one breath you admit that it's human made stories, and with the next you dig a god out of it. Why? You're making up your own god. Is it THAT critical to you, to have it validated by a bunch of old stories?

If the bible is not authoritative, then .....WHY.....do you base your religion on it? It's bronze age myth, plain and simple, which describes an EVIL god. You're creative enough to invent your own god, so just do it, if living in fantasy is that important to you. Name him BoozelGoop or something. Maybe even make Him a Her. Let the despicable yahweh die the long overdue death he so immanently diserves.

-Ubercat

edit:sorry. Missed the post about the last word.

[WishboneDawn]

With one breath you admit that it's human made stories, and with the next you dig a god out of it. Why? You're making up your own god. Is it THAT critical to you, to have it validated by a bunch of old stories?

If the bible is not authoritative, then .....WHY.....do you base your religion on it? It's bronze age myth, plain and simple, which describes an EVIL god. You're creative enough to invent your own god, so just do it, if living in fantasy is that important to you. Name him BoozelGoop or something. Maybe even make Him a Her. Let the despicable yahweh die the long overdue death he so immanently diserves.

-Ubercat

edit:sorry. Missed the post about the last word.

Cat food!!!


I should definately wait 'till morning before going any farther with this because I'm feeling way too silly (You started it with the 'EVIIIL" thing) that I'm not so sure I won't start making fart jokes. Probably bronze age, sheep herder fart jokes too.

[seebs]

UberCat, I think I see what you're getting at.

Now, let me ask you a question. Have you ever in your life found a source of information which was usable, even though it was not flawlessly reliable? For instance, let's assume for the sake of argument that sometimes people lie, and sometimes they are mistaken.

Would you ever consider, even for a moment, basing an opinion on something a person tells you, when you know that people are not generally infallible and authoritative? Might you consider something nonetheless "likely" based on accounts, or at least take it as a basis for exploration?

The question of the alleged "evil bronze-age god" is a separate question, but there's no point in even getting into that until we've addressed the first question, IMHO.

For myself, not only will I draw conclusions from things people tell me, sometimes I will draw conclusions that are attempts to correct for errors I know they make. I have a friend who consistently overestimates the hostility of others; if she tells me a story about how some people acted, I build a theory of what happened from her account, but in my beliefs, the people are less hostile than what she described.

I think the distinction here is best understood as the distinction between accounts and stories. The Bible is a collection of things that people believed, not necessarily just a collection of things they made up. Even if they were fallible, you can sometimes learn something about the world from hearing even an imperfect description of it.

[Ubercat]

UberCat, I think I see what you're getting at.

FINALLY!!!!

Now, let me ask you a question. Have you ever in your life found a source of information which was usable, even though it was not flawlessly reliable? For instance, let's assume for the sake of argument that sometimes people lie, and sometimes they are mistaken.

Would you ever consider, even for a moment, basing an opinion on something a person tells you, when you know that people are not generally infallible and authoritative? Might you consider something nonetheless "likely" based on accounts, or at least take it as a basis for exploration?

The question of the alleged "evil bronze-age god" is a separate question, but there's no point in even getting into that until we've addressed the first question, IMHO.

For myself, not only will I draw conclusions from things people tell me, sometimes I will draw conclusions that are attempts to correct for errors I know they make. I have a friend who consistently overestimates the hostility of others; if she tells me a story about how some people acted, I build a theory of what happened from her account, but in my beliefs, the people are less hostile than what she described.

I think the distinction here is best understood as the distinction between accounts and stories. The Bible is a collection of things that people believed, not necessarily just a collection of things they made up. Even if they were fallible, you can sometimes learn something about the world from hearing even an imperfect description of it.

Of course I can often take a humans word for something, even though I know that no person is infallible. It takes a judgement call. The call is usually based on the trustworthiness of the person and the reasonableness of what they say. If the person describes an evil god, and then informs me that this god "loves" me, I for one don't buy it. How ANYONE can is beyond me.

As for old books or personal accounts; I can read how the wonderful Christopher Columbus murdered a native American on the beach, just to get a closer look at it, and bragged later of all the heathens he sent to hell for the glory of biblegod. That is reasonable, as it is perfectly consistent with the history of the religion you guys choose to follow, and laughing at me for calling EVIL what it is, changes nothing. To read that Moses parted the Red Sea is clearly bunk though, as it defies reality if not accompanied with valid evidence. Why would anyone not brainwashed buy it? :huh:

-Ubercat

[fatpie42]

As for old books or personal accounts; I can read how the wonderful Christopher Columbus murdered a native American on the beach, just to get a closer look at it, and bragged later of all the heathens he sent to hell for the glory of biblegod. That is reasonable, as it is perfectly consistent with the history of the religion you guys choose to follow, and laughing at me for calling EVIL what it is, changes nothing.

Did it ever occur to you that murdering a native american and then taking pride in it might have more to do with racism than religion? Certainly I'm not denying that there was a religious aspect to his thinking, otherwise he would not have brought up the word 'hell', but I don't think he was really thinking "well the Bible stories convince me that killing primitive tribesmen is encouraged by God". I think it is more likely that he did the killing first and then judged it as compatible with his religious beliefs later. Considering primitive peoples to be heathens who are going to hell requires a racist outlook; not just a religious one.

[5358]

Now, let me ask you a question. Have you ever in your life found a source of information which was usable, even though it was not flawlessly reliable? For instance, let's assume for the sake of argument that sometimes people lie, and sometimes they are mistaken.

Yes, the internet is a wonderful example. That's why I go to more than one source, I look at the payee of the source and I try an avenue not on the internet.
So we've the Bible or even if we throw out the Bible we've got-nothing, nada, no reliable facts, no proof,no studies.
Various people talking about their "experiences" or their "feelings" or what they just "know".
Some reports in the bible, if true, are about visions that would find you today in a mental health facility. When you hear voices- it's a pretty serious malfunction of the brain. Whereas I'm not interested in locking people up that are not harming others-I also don't write down what my local homeless guy is mumbling and think it's got to have a bit of truth in it-so I should investigate & study what he says.

[Ubercat]

Did it ever occur to you that murdering a native american and then taking pride in it might have more to do with racism than religion? Certainly I'm not denying that there was a religious aspect to his thinking, otherwise he would not have brought up the word 'hell', but I don't think he was really thinking "well the Bible stories convince me that killing primitive tribesmen is encouraged by God". I think it is more likely that he did the killing first and then judged it as compatible with his religious beliefs later. Considering primitive peoples to be heathens who are going to hell requires a racist outlook; not just a religious one.

Columbus was a racist? Really? Next you're going to say that the ancient Israelites were racist......oh wait. They were. I can't IMAGINE why.

What does Columbus racism have to do with the subject. OF COURSE he was a racist. DId it ever occur to you that a REAL god would take us beyond our own pettiness? Something which biblegod has consistently and spectacularly failed to do? Hell, a REAL god would have set up a universe in which racism wasn't even an issue.

-Ubercat

[AthenaAwakened]

Can racism exist ourside of religion? Of course it can.

BUT

Religion has, more often that not, given racism both legitimacy and cover.

"The negroes are curse by god. By keeping them as slaves, we are fulfilling prophecy AND bringing them to christ" So what if slavery makes life miserable, as long as all will be made right in the afterlife.

[fatpie42]

Columbus was a racist? Really? Next you're going to say that the ancient Israelites were racist......oh wait. They were. I can't IMAGINE why.

What does Columbus racism have to do with the subject. OF COURSE he was a racist. DId it ever occur to you that a REAL god would take us beyond our own pettiness? Something which biblegod has consistently and spectacularly failed to do? Hell, a REAL god would have set up a universe in which racism wasn't even an issue.

-Ubercat

If I remember correctly, the Bible constantly reminds us that humans are horrible pieces of cr*p, so I hardly think its surprising that the people within the stories are racist barst*rds.

But I think the issue was that Columbus' racism is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of his religion.

[dettus]

And people's tolerance is not necessarily a result of their religion either.

[fatpie42]

And people's tolerance is not necessarily a result of their religion either.

Well said. Naturally it works both ways.

[ELECTROGOD]

You're creative enough to invent your own god, so just do it, if living in fantasy is that important to you. Name him BoozelGoop or something.
:wave: I think they should call it "Goodynicegod".

[Ubercat]

If I remember correctly, the Bible constantly reminds us that humans are horrible pieces of cr*p, so I hardly think its surprising that the people within the stories are racist barst*rds.

But I think the issue was that Columbus' racism is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of his religion.

I'm not sure what your posts are having to do with the point.

-Ubercat

[WishboneDawn]

I'm not sure what your posts are having to do with the point.

-Ubercat

There's a point? :Cheeky:

I know we were talking about enablers then a bit about women and scripture and then the Mermaid Man view of the bible...

[Ubercat]

There's a point? :Cheeky:

I know we were talking about enablers then a bit about women and scripture and then the Mermaid Man view of the bible...

While we're on the subject, could you explain "mermaid man"? Is it from a movie? Does it have something to do with people who get frustrated over the cognitive dissonance of others?

-Ubercat

[WishboneDawn]

While we're on the subject, could you explain "mermaid man"? Is it from a movie? Does it have something to do with people who get frustrated over the cognitive dissonance of others?

-Ubercat

Sorry! No, it's a Spongebob Squarepants thing. Mermaid Man is an elderly superhero suffering from dementia who, when agitated, is prone to yelling, 'EEEVIIIIIIL!!!'

How can you presume to talk about religion and not have a thourough grounding in Spongebob Squarepants??? I'm boggled. really.

[gurugeorge]

In fact, many of us have been spurred to deconvert because of reading the Bible -- and discovering that it is far from perfect. Even the always-freethinkers among us have often concluded from reading it that it is rather grotesquely overrated, to put it mildly.

It's interesting that the publication of the Bible in vernacular was probably the main cause of the fragmentation and the weakening of Christianity, and scepiticism about it.

Up till then, as you say, yeomen would have just taken the priest's word for it, but as soon as they could examine the document for themselves, the more intelligent of them would have noticed puzzles and anomalies pretty quickly.

[seebs]

Of course I can often take a humans word for something, even though I know that no person is infallible. It takes a judgement call. The call is usually based on the trustworthiness of the person and the reasonableness of what they say. If the person describes an evil god, and then informs me that this god "loves" me, I for one don't buy it. How ANYONE can is beyond me.

Hmm! Well, for starters, I don't see the Bible as a unified book.

Imagine, if you will, a collection of writings about Martin Luther King, with the first few coming from FBI agents who depict him as an evil man who is a threat to our very way of life, and then you get to read his speeches.

Or, for more subtlety, imagine reading an angry teenager's rant about his parents' cruelty...

I personally don't think the Hebrews described God very well; I just think they were a starting point.

To read that Moses parted the Red Sea is clearly bunk though, as it defies reality if not accompanied with valid evidence. Why would anyone not brainwashed buy it? :huh:

The story was written by people who clearly understood that it was a rather unusual claim.

But I don't have a solid reason to reject miracles right now; I don't necessarily accept them, but to reject them out of hand for being rare strikes me as problematic.

[Ubercat]

Hmm! Well, for starters, I don't see the Bible as a unified book.

Imagine, if you will, a collection of writings about Martin Luther King, with the first few coming from FBI agents who depict him as an evil man who is a threat to our very way of life, and then you get to read his speeches.

Or, for more subtlety, imagine reading an angry teenager's rant about his parents' cruelty...

I personally don't think the Hebrews described God very well; I just think they were a starting point.

The story was written by people who clearly understood that it was a rather unusual claim.

But I don't have a solid reason to reject miracles right now; I don't necessarily accept them, but to reject them out of hand for being rare strikes me as problematic.

If my parents forced me to eat my own shit, you're DAMN right I'd call them evil. I'd be correct too.

Of course we know that martin L. King existed. I've seen him on film. And I'm not aware of anyone making up silly stories about him having super powers. If someone did, I wouldn't believe it without good evidence. Why should I?

-Ubercat

[fatpie42]

Well personally, not believing in a God myself, I can say the hebrews had a very good description of THEIR God. For me I think of God(s) in the Nietzschean sense, as an embodiment of values. The Hebrews' view of God was a natural expression of their values.

We don't just reject miracles because they are rare. We reject them because they DO NOT HAPPEN. It's not just that they happen very very rarely. It's that we have not really discovered any miracles that there has not been a very natural down-to-earth explanation for.

Back when the New Testament was written claims for miracles were much more common. There is a story where Dionysus anchored a ship in the middle of the sea by causing a grapevine to grow out of the sea and hold it in place. Dionysus also turned all the crew (except for one) into dolphins. This story was not considered to be fictional by those who told it.

The stories of miracles, just like gods, express certain ideas, morals, and values. Whether they are 'true' is of rather less importance.

[lpetrich]

Well said, Steven Mading. And what's worse, those who claim that the nastier Xians or Muslims or whatever are not true Xians or Muslims or whatever are often remarkably unwilling to challenge or to try to publicly discredit those nasty ones. There are exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions. And they seem reluctant to be very public about it. As that Salon article on the "Religious Left" noted, where are its public spokespeople, people who go out in public like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Atheism seems to have more public spokespeople nowadays, people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

Being out in public is certainly not a career for everybody, but I do think that someone has to be willing to be out in public, appearing on news shows and the like.


And I'd like to note some sacred-book interpretation styles that I find very annoying.

Denial that one believes in the inerrancy of one's favorite sacred book while going to great lengths to avoid accepting that there are any errors in it. This may be called quasi-inerrancy.

Presenting the parts that one likes without explanation in fundie fashion, while coming up with complicated, contrived explanations for the parts that one doesn't like.

Treating the parts one likes as literal and the parts one doesn't like as allegorical.

Treating context as irrelevant for the parts one likes while moaning and groaning that it was quoted out of context for the parts one doesn't like.

That may be why some of us think that fundamentalism seems more intellectually rigorous than liberalism.

[angela2]

We don't just reject miracles because they are rare. We reject them because they DO NOT HAPPEN. It's not just that they happen very very rarely. It's that we have not really discovered any miracles that there has not been a very natural down-to-earth explanation for.

And what is the down-to-earth explanation for the Incarnation? That it didn't happen?

The Incarnation is the reason that miracles are important. To believe in the God-man, Jesus Christ, is to believe in a miracle.

Do you have a parellel myth for a person who is fully human and fully divine? To the best of my knowledge none exist. There are myths about gods who pretend to be humans, and myths about people who are the result of the union between gods and humans. But none of these meet the criterion.

[angela2]

And I'd like to note some sacred-book interpretation styles that I find very annoying.

Denial that one believes in the inerrancy of one's favorite sacred book while going to great lengths to avoid accepting that there are any errors in it. This may be called quasi-inerrancy.

Presenting the parts that one likes without explanation in fundie fashion, while coming up with complicated, contrived explanations for the parts that one doesn't like.

Treating the parts one likes as literal and the parts one doesn't like as allegorical.

Treating context as irrelevant for the parts one likes while moaning and groaning that it was quoted out of context for the parts one doesn't like.

That may be why some of us think that fundamentalism seems more intellectually rigorous than liberalism.
Complexity seems to be a sine qua non for the bible which is a collection of books written at widely different times in different places by many different people.

I would think that people who are atheists would be familiar with the concept that some things require complex explanations.

[angela2]

It's interesting that the publication of the Bible in vernacular was probably the main cause of the fragmentation and the weakening of Christianity, and scepiticism about it.
Or it could have been the rise of individualism which began with the collapse of feudalism.

[WishboneDawn]

And I'd like to note some sacred-book interpretation styles that I find very annoying.

Denial that one believes in the inerrancy of one's favorite sacred book while going to great lengths to avoid accepting that there are any errors in it. This may be called quasi-inerrancy.

Presenting the parts that one likes without explanation in fundie fashion, while coming up with complicated, contrived explanations for the parts that one doesn't like.

Treating the parts one likes as literal and the parts one doesn't like as allegorical.

Treating context as irrelevant for the parts one likes while moaning and groaning that it was quoted out of context for the parts one doesn't like.

That may be why some of us think that fundamentalism seems more intellectually rigorous than liberalism.

If you're describing your average experience with a liberal christian then I'd agree they don't sound too intellectually rigourous. You're not describing any kind of scholarly liberal theology however, just lay people's ideas. I'd venture to say a lot of lay people who happen to be conservative aren't any more rigourous but that the thin veneer of consistency some people so admire seems to give that illusion. Do a little work in examining it and it crumbles pretty easily.

[WishboneDawn]

And what is the down-to-earth explanation for the Incarnation? That it didn't happen?

You don't find that a reasonable explanation?

The Incarnation is the reason that miracles are important. To believe in the God-man, Jesus Christ, is to believe in a miracle.

Do you have a parellel myth for a person who is fully human and fully divine? To the best of my knowledge none exist. There are myths about gods who pretend to be humans, and myths about people who are the result of the union between gods and humans. But none of these meet the criterion.

Assuming you're right, why should that prove it really happened?

[Steven Mading]

That may be why some of us think that fundamentalism seems more intellectually rigorous than liberalism.
Exactly. Fundamentalism attempts to be internally consistent (it doesn't succeed because the bible it's based on isn't internally consistent itself, but it does TRY) - it doesn't bother trying to match reality but it does attempt to match itself. Its chief problems are with the fact that it is EXternally inconsistent - it doesn't match up with reality. More liberal theology, on the other hand, is INTERNALLY inconsistent - priding itself on contradicting itself and seeing absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about that. - "The bible is an accurate history, and is god's word, except for those parts of it that would make us look silly if we believed it - those parts are just highly metaphorical." It strikes me as extremely frustrating because these are obviously people who are smart enough to tell their belief structure doesn't match reality, but it's like they don't CARE that it doesn't match - they want to believe it anyway because it feels nice.

[angela2]

You don't find that a reasonable explanation?
No
Assuming you're right, why should that prove it really happened?
I have no desire to try to prove anything.

[Ubercat]

Complexity seems to be a sine qua non for the bible which is a collection of books written at widely different times in different places by many different people.

I would think that people who are atheists would be familiar with the concept that some things require complex explanations.

And I would think that people who are christians would be familiar with the concept that an all powerful god would be capable of giving them an innerant, utterly perfect instruction manual, without the need for any bullshit apologetics. It's the least BIBLEgod could do, since it's ALL you have to go on. It's not like he can be bothered to give you the time of day, let alone any one on one direction. :rolling:

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge
It's interesting that the publication of the Bible in vernacular was probably the main cause of the fragmentation and the weakening of Christianity, and scepiticism about it.

Or it could have been the rise of individualism which began with the collapse of feudalism.

Of course it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the church wouldn't let any but priests read the bible for centuries. THEY knew, centuries before Mark Twain did, that the best cure for christianity was reading the bible.

-Ubercat

[TNorthover]

(Regarding "It didn't happen" not being a down to earth explanation of the incarnation.

No

Then you're quite simply asking for the impossible. A god becoming human (while at the same time being a god etc) just isn't a down-to-earth event, if it happens.

[angela2]

(Regarding "It didn't happen" not being a down to earth explanation of the incarnation.



Then you're quite simply asking for the impossible. A god becoming human (while at the same time being a god etc) just isn't a down-to-earth event, if it happens.
Yup. I think I was talking about miracles.

[angela2]

mistake

[Biff the unclean]

Do you have a parellel myth for a person who is fully human and fully divine? To the best of my knowledge none exist. There are myths about gods who pretend to be humans, and myths about people who are the result of the union between gods and humans. But none of these meet the criterion.
Actually there are a bunch. The type of supernatural being you are talking about is called a demigod. The specific one that the Jesus character copies was called Dionysus.
But you won't be able to read this because you have me on ignore. Since you support you beliefs by bragging of your ignorance then what better way to remain ignorant than to ignore the facts

[TNorthover]

Yup. I think I was talking about miracles.

Good for you, but it does rather rip the whole point out of your post.

In reply to "We've not found any miracles without down to earth explanations", (paraphrased) you've effectively posted: "Yes, but ignoring those, you can't find any down-to earth explanations, can you? Can you?"

[angela2]

Good for you, but it does rather rip the whole point out of your post.

In reply to "We've not found any miracles without down to earth explanations", (paraphrased) you've effectively posted: "Yes, but ignoring those, you can't find any down-to earth explanations, can you? Can you?"
Some people might not be aware, as you obviously are, that the doctrine of the Incarnation makes miraculous claims. Just wanted to make sure people knew what they were rejecting.

[angela2]

Actually there are a bunch. The type of supernatural being you are talking about is called a demigod. The specific one that the Jesus character copies was called Dionysus.
demigod
n (1530) 1: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god 2: a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine
Britannica Ready Reference
The facts are, this definition is not the definition of the two natures of Jesus Christ.

[JamesBannon]

demigod
n (1530) 1: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god 2: a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine
Britannica Ready Reference
The facts are, this definition is not the definition of the two natures of Jesus Christ.

You're equivocating. The fact is that there is no natural explanation for the 2 natures of Christ and all sorts of nonsensical arguments made up to justify it (such as saying that Jesus and God are ontologically equivalent but not the same person because person is flesh). Why should we not believe that the deification of Jesus is an example of mythology? This seems to be far the most likely of the available explanations.

[angela2]

And I would think that people who are christians would be familiar with the concept that an all powerful god would be capable of giving them an innerant, utterly perfect instruction manual, without the need for any bullshit apologetics. It's the least BIBLEgod could do, since it's ALL you have to go on. It's not like he can be bothered to give you the time of day, let alone any one on one direction. :rolling:
Actually, it isn't all Christians have to go on. Nor was it ever intended to be an instruction manual.

As to my all powerful God, the ability to do something doesn't imply any conditional need to do that something.

[angela2]

You're equivocating. The fact is that there is no natural explanation for the 2 natures of Christ and all sorts of nonsensical arguments made up to justify it (such as saying that Jesus and God are ontologically equivalent but not the same person because person is flesh). Why should we not believe that the deification of Jesus is an example of mythology? This seems to be far the most likely of the available explanations.
You can believe as you wish. That doesn't mean that the definition for the nature of a demigod and the definition of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ are the same as Biff claimed.

[JamesBannon]

You can believe as you wish. That doesn't mean that the definition for the nature of a demigod and the definition of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ are the same as Biff claimed.
The last resort of the religionist - quibbling over the definition of words. Biff simply claimed that Jesus, as a deity, is no more different that Dionysus as a deity. Both are examples of myths surrounding a human character.

[Malachi151]

I think this thread is proof that liberal christians enable the fundies, just look at the illogical argumetns made by the "liberal christiasn". It is this accepting of illogic in the society that enables the fundies.

[fatpie42]

Do you have a parellel myth for a person who is fully human and fully divine? To the best of my knowledge none exist.

Rama, Krishna, Dionysus. There are blooming tons of them!


There are myths about gods who pretend to be humans, and myths about people who are the result of the union between gods and humans. But none of these meet the criterion.

They are both human and God. What more do you want?

[WishboneDawn]

Exactly. Fundamentalism attempts to be internally consistent (it doesn't succeed because the bible it's based on isn't internally consistent itself, but it does TRY) - it doesn't bother trying to match reality but it does attempt to match itself. Its chief problems are with the fact that it is EXternally inconsistent - it doesn't match up with reality. More liberal theology, on the other hand, is INTERNALLY inconsistent - priding itself on contradicting itself and seeing absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about that. - "The bible is an accurate history, and is god's word, except for those parts of it that would make us look silly if we believed it - those parts are just highly metaphorical." It strikes me as extremely frustrating because these are obviously people who are smart enough to tell their belief structure doesn't match reality, but it's like they don't CARE that it doesn't match - they want to believe it anyway because it feels nice.

You're misrepresenting liberal theology.

In what I've studied the thing most often made clear at the very beginning, the thing that defines liberal theology is that the bible is NOT god's word. It is a work of man and spans different times and cultures. Also, the idea that the bible is an accurate history isn't something I've encountered either.

If you're going to talk about what moderate and some liberal lay people believe then perhaps you've got a point. If your going to use the term 'theology', you're dead wrong and need to sit down with a few books.

[WishboneDawn]

I think this thread is proof that liberal christians enable the fundies, just look at the illogical argumetns made by the "liberal christiasn". It is this accepting of illogic in the society that enables the fundies.

I really wish you'd move to tighter and more detailed arguments to support what you're saying.

"...Just look at the idiotic statements made by DJ's. It is this accepting of idiotic statements in the society that enables the fundies."

"...Just look at the strident claims made by Republicans. It is this accepting of strident claims in the society that enables the fundies."

[fatpie42]

Yup. I think I was talking about miracles.

Of course Jesus never said he was all God. He said "I and the father are one" which is perfectly in keeping with him being a divine human. The incarnation does not have to miraculous. There are humans all over the place.

Although if by 'miracle' you mean an object of awe and wonder then yes, Jesus' incarnation is a miracle (by very liberal Christian standards). Of course it isn't much of a miracle for me, even by those standards, since I do not base my life around Jesus' death.

[fatpie42]

demigod
n (1530) 1: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god 2: a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine
Britannica Ready Reference
The facts are, this definition is not the definition of the two natures of Jesus Christ.

Unless you accept the second definition, like Bultmann probably would.

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
And I would think that people who are christians would be familiar with the concept that an all powerful god would be capable of giving them an innerant, utterly perfect instruction manual, without the need for any bullshit apologetics. It's the least BIBLEgod could do, since it's ALL you have to go on. It's not like he can be bothered to give you the time of day, let alone any one on one direction.


Actually, it isn't all Christians have to go on. Nor was it ever intended to be an instruction manual.

What else do you have to go on? Wishful thinking, emotional endorphin rushes, cool dreams and happy coincidences don't count. We ALL get them.

As to my all powerful God, the ability to do something doesn't imply any conditional need to do that something.

Of course not. He likes watching his children murder each other in wars over doctrinal differences. He also gets a rush reading all the nonsense, which his neglect forces you guys to make up in support of his existence.

-Ubercat

[fatpie42]

I think this thread is proof that liberal christians enable the fundies, just look at the illogical argumetns made by the "liberal christiasn". It is this accepting of illogic in the society that enables the fundies.

Who is the liberal Christian and what have they said that you find illogical? Angela actually has a small amount of liberality to her beliefs, but not much. Even while she might be prepared to accept that there is imagery in the Bible and follow some of the thought of feminist theologians, she still insists that we accept the miracles as truly supernatural events. There are serious problems with such an interpretation, especially if you take it to mean that 'miraculous healings' are possible in the modern world without the aid of science.

Wishbone Dawn has not said much, if anything, that I would have any strong disagreements on. Certainly he takes the crucifixion of Jesus to be a lot more important than I would, but other than that I think we are of a fairly similar position generally (though I might be missing something).

[Biff the unclean]

The facts are, this definition is not the definition of the two natures of Jesus Christ.
Odd that you should find a demigod definition that does not contain the common meaning, “the offspring of a god and a mortal.”
There are your two natures of Jesus right there, he’s a hybrid. And your two natures of Dionysus, Hercules, Helen, Perseus, Achilles, Minos, Orion, Aeneas, etc., etc.

[fatpie42]

[I]Quote:
What else do you have to go on? Wishful thinking, emotional endorphin rushes, cool dreams and happy coincidences don't count. We ALL get them.


Exactly!

The difference between you and her is that she would attribute those feelings to a transcendent deity while you would not.

Other (much) more liberal Christians have accepted that a God is actually a kind of way of thinking about all those feelings in a way that motivates them that they happen to find works for them very well. I would disagree with these Christians, not because I think they are wrong, but because I don't think the concept of God is very helpful for me. (Some of these very liberal Christians might suggest that everyone needs a concept of God, while others recognise that it does not work for everybody.)


Of course not. He likes watching his children murder each other in wars over doctrinal differences. He also gets a rush reading all the nonsense, which his neglect forces you guys to make up in support of his existence.

-Ubercat

I'm not going to contradict you on this. Angela clearly believes in a God who can intervene, so she cannot really justify dodging this issue.

[WishboneDawn]

Wishbone Dawn has not said much, if anything, that I would have any strong disagreements on. Certainly he takes the crucifixion of Jesus to be a lot more important than I would, but other than that I think we are of a fairly similar position generally (though I might be missing something).

Just a little dash of god is all. :)

And I'm a she actually. But I find a lot of the criticisms (though not a lot of the posters...In general this is a well informed bunch of folks)) of liberals and particularily liberal theology here are often unfocused and ill informed. The beef is with more mainstream christians but they define anything that's not conservative as liberal. Actually, as a non-American I find most discussions with groups of Americans, from politics to comic books, are hindered by the same problem. There's a polarized view of things in the US that's a bit unique to the country.

We need a thread on defining liberal christianity as opposed to the moderate middle I think. I may start one when I get back from my parents. Turkey still digesting (Canadian thanksgiving this weekend). Brain not working well.

[angela2]

Odd that you should find a demigod definition that does not contain the common meaning, “the offspring of a god and a mortal.”
There are your two natures of Jesus right there, he’s a hybrid. And your two natures of Dionysus, Hercules, Helen, Perseus, Achilles, Minos, Orion, Aeneas, etc., etc.
I think I covered this in an earlier post. Jesus Christ is not half God and half human, he is fully God and fully human. That's what we mean when we say, two natures one person. In the 2nd cen. Christian writers were already making it clear that Jesus Christ was not a tertia res, a third thing, part human and part deity, a hybrid.

[EthnAlln]

You're misrepresenting liberal theology.


Theology aside, what distinguishes the liberal Christians I know best (my wife and most of our close friends) is an unwillingness to discuss theology. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, just love to talk about God and Jesus all day long.

Living with my wife, day in and day out, the one thing I've noticed is that the member of the Trinity she mentions most often in connection with her many charitable activities is the Holy Spirit. She believes the Holy Spirit inspires her and arranges circumstances for her.

I, of course, don't believe that, but if it adds meaning to her life, I wouldn't say a word against it. Now that I think of it, though, it's remarkable that I can't remember a time when she talked about praying to Jesus. Bertrand Russell once remarked that the Catholic Church consisted of Roman canon law, Greek metaphysics, and Hebrew sacred history. My wife must be immersed in the Greek part.

[ELECTROGOD]

Biff, I think that angela2 has taken you off of ignore. :D

[Ubercat]

I think I covered this in an earlier post. Jesus Christ is not half God and half human, he is fully God and fully human. That's what we mean when we say, two natures one person. In the 2nd cen. Christian writers were already making it clear that Jesus Christ was not a tertia res, a third thing, part human and part deity, a hybrid.

So if I invent a god, and think of something that is unique about him, something that is not just a copy of someone elses invented god, then that would be enough to make him real to you?

I don't know of any gods that are described as having Heinz Catsup bottles in place of their ears...........

Poof!! I hereby invent Gorfamandes the Catsup bottle eared god of the universe! He was not drawn from any other myths.

Do you believe in him?

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Theology aside, what distinguishes the liberal Christians I know best (my wife and most of our close friends) is an unwillingness to discuss theology. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, just love to talk about God and Jesus all day long.

Of course the liberals don't. It must be embarrasing to HAVE no consistent theology, but then try to explain it to others.
Praise jeebus for saving me!
He saved you from hell?
Of course not! There's no such place!
What? :confused:

Living with my wife, day in and day out, the one thing I've noticed is that the member of the Trinity she mentions most often in connection with her many charitable activities is the Holy Spirit. She believes the Holy Spirit inspires her and arranges circumstances for her.

I, of course, don't believe that, but if it adds meaning to her life, I wouldn't say a word against it. Now that I think of it, though, it's remarkable that I can't remember a time when she talked about praying to Jesus. Bertrand Russell once remarked that the Catholic Church consisted of Roman canon law, Greek metaphysics, and Hebrew sacred history. My wife must be immersed in the Greek part.

Reminds me of my ex girlfriend. She once described the circumstances behind her meeting a certain friend of hers. "I was driving down the road, and I saw a woman carrying 3 grocery bags and leading 2 small children. The holy spirit told me to stop and offer her a lift."

OF COURSE it couldn't have been simple human empathy.

-Ubercat

[ELECTROGOD]

Poof!! I hereby invent Gorfamandes the Catsup bottle eared god of the universe!
"His" church organization can be the food industry, the houses of worship are resturants and "his" priests are the chefs.
Church elders and whatnot can be represented by waitresses, suppliers, etc. who provide the holy sacrament of ketchup.

[Biff the unclean]

I think I covered this in an earlier post. Jesus Christ is not half God and half human, he is fully God and fully human. That's what we mean when we say, two natures one person. In the 2nd cen. Christian writers were already making it clear that Jesus Christ was not a tertia res, a third thing, part human and part deity, a hybrid.

All of the demigods I mentioned were 100% human and 100% god. Nobody said anything about them being half & half. They all had dual natures. Note that when Heracles threw himself on the pyre he burned away his human nature and left his divine untouched. Same with the crucifixion of Dionysus.
Also note that you keep calling Jesus “Christ.” A “Christ” is a specific sort of hero demigod. The title comes from Krishna (before the 1890’s spelled Christna)who fatpie42 has already mentioned.
There are no unique claims that can be made of Jesus’ nature. They all reference pagan deities.

[angela2]

All of the demigods I mentioned were 100% human and 100% god. Nobody said anything about them being half & half. They all had dual natures. Note that when Heracles threw himself on the pyre he burned away his human nature and left his divine untouched. Same with the crucifixion of Dionysus.
Also note that you keep calling Jesus “Christ.” A “Christ” is a specific sort of hero demigod. The title comes from Krishna (before the 1890’s spelled Christna)who fatpie42 has already mentioned.
There are no unique claims that can be made of Jesus’ nature. They all reference pagan deities.
"Demi" means 'half.'
Where is your proof that these beings were though to have dual natures?

[angela2]

But Hercules, after charging Hyllus his elder son by Deianira, to marry Iole when he came of age, proceeded to Mount Oeta, in the Trachinian territory, and there constructed a pyre, mounted it, and gave orders to kindle it. When no one would do so, Poeas, passing by to look for his flocks, set a light to it. On him Hercules bestowed his bow. While the pyre was burning, it is said that a cloud passed under Hercules and with a peal of thunder wafted him up to heaven. Thereafter he obtained immortality, and being reconciled to Hera he married her daughter Hebe, by whom he had sons, Alexiares and Anicetus.
http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/034.html

Interesting how you misunderstood the story.

[Biff the unclean]

"Demi" means 'half.'
Where is your proof that these beings were though to have dual natures?
Demi refers to their parentage, the offspring of a deity and a mortal. Just like Jesus. They were able to accomplish supernatural deeds during their mortal life times. Just like Jesus. When their human span came to an end they ascended to the abode of the gods to be one of them. Just like Jesus.
I already gave proof of belief in their dual natures when I cited the mortal “deaths” of Heracles and Dionysus.

[angela2]

And then there is Dionysus.

So Proclus tells us that “Dionysus was the last king of the gods appointed by Zeus. For his father set him on the kingly throne, and placed in his hand the sceptre, and made him king of all the gods of the world.” Such traditions point to a custom of temporarily investing the king’s son with the royal dignity as a preliminary to sacrificing him instead of his father. Pomegranates were supposed to have sprung from the blood of Dionysus, as anemones from the blood of Adonis and violets from the blood of Attis: hence women refrained from eating seeds of pomegranates at the festival of the Thesmophoria. According to some, the severed limbs of Dionysus were pieced together, at the command of Zeus, by Apollo, who buried them on Parnassus. The grave of Dionysus was shown in the Delphic temple beside a golden statue of Apollo. However, according to another account, the grave of Dionysus was at Thebes, where he is said to have been torn in pieces. Thus far the resurrection of the slain god is not mentioned, but in other versions of the myth it is variously related. According to one version, which represented Dionysus as a son of Zeus and Demeter, his mother pieced together his mangled limbs and made him young again. In others it is simply said that shortly after his burial he rose from the dead and ascended up to heaven; or that Zeus raised him up as he lay mortally wounded; or that Zeus swallowed the heart of Dionysus and then begat him afresh by Semele, who in the common legend figures as mother of Dionysus. Or, again, the heart was pounded up and given in a potion to Semele, who thereby conceived him.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb04300.htm

Notice no claim is made that Dionysus was believed to be human.

[Biff the unclean]

Interesting how you misunderstood the story.
I have no trouble understanding it. What problems do you have with mythology?

[angela2]

Demi refers to their parentage, the offspring of a deity and a mortal. Just like Jesus. They were able to accomplish supernatural deeds during their mortal life times. Just like Jesus. When their human span came to an end they ascended to the abode of the gods to be one of them. Just like Jesus.
I already gave proof of belief in their dual natures when I cited the mortal “deaths” of Heracles and Dionysus.
Somebody has been lying to you. The two citations I gave you are from Frazier Golden Bough. That's about as authoritative as it gets with mythology.
Certainly a lot about Jesus could be explained if he were half human and half divine. But that is not the Christian claim.

[Biff the unclean]

Notice no claim is made that Dionysus was believed to be human.
You present one paragraph which valiantly presents several of the sects of Dionysianism and you complain that this snippet doesn’t say he was “human human”
He was the son of Semele and Semele was very human. (After her death she became the holy ghost of the Trinity.) You’ll note that your blurb not only calls him king of the gods but it also mentions several sites for his grave.

[Biff the unclean]

Somebody has been lying to you. The two citations I gave you are from Frazier Golden Bough. That's about as authoritative as it gets with mythology.
Neither citation supports your claim.

Certainly a lot about Jesus could be explained if he were half human and half divine. But that is not the Christian claim.
The Christian claim is of a human mother and a god for a father. Wave your hands all you want but that was a claim that was common as dirt in classical religions from Ireland to India.
Try reading Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life by Carl Kerenyi and Ralph Manheim it covers the subject in more depth.

[angela2]

You present one paragraph which valiantly presents several of the sects of Dionysianism and you complain that this snippet doesn’t say he was “human human”
He was the son of Semele and Semele was very human. (After her death she became the holy ghost of the Trinity.) You’ll note that your blurb not only calls him king of the gods but it also mentions several sites for his grave.
Show me a credible citation that says the people who believed these myths believed these beings to have 2 full, complete natures. If that's what they believed, wouldn't you think they would have stated it outright?

Otherwise, the definition of demigod holds.

[fatpie42]

Somebody has been lying to you. The two citations I gave you are from Frazier Golden Bough. That's about as authoritative as it gets with mythology.


Don't you mean James George Frazer's 'Golden Bough'?

1. The book claims that all sorts of tribes worshipped man-Gods, which I would have thought refuted your claims that Jesus was unique in having wholly man and wholly God nature at the same time.

2. Frazer always based his writings on other people's research, but not all the research he referred to was entirely accurate. Just thought you should know (hence why I did not use Frazer to show point 1 earlier).

[Biff the unclean]

Show me a credible citation that says the people who believed these myths believed these beings to have 2 full, complete natures.
Show you where? In the bible? Can’t do it.
Show you that the ancients thought these guys were both men and gods? I’ve already given you the reference of a very scholarly book on the subject.

If that's what they believed, wouldn't you think they would have stated it outright?

Otherwise, the definition of demigod holds.
What I think is that you are trapped by the history of classical Hellenistic religion clearly showing that your Jesus myth isn’t original. A demigod is the son of a god and a human. In classic mythology gods and humans were having hero children all the time. You repeat the same story while demanding that it’s different, no one is fooled.

[Ubercat]

"Demi" means 'half.'
Where is your proof that these beings were though to have dual natures?

What the heck does it matter? Those straws you're grasping at won't save you from the ludicrosity of your chosen god.

-Ubercat

And if he has 20 volumes of proof, would you give up the myth? Why ask if you don't care about the answer?

[angela2]

Show you where? In the bible? Can’t do it.
Show you that the ancients thought these guys were both men and gods? I’ve already given you the reference of a very scholarly book on the subject.


What I think is that you are trapped by the history of classical Hellenistic religion clearly showing that your Jesus myth isn’t original. A demigod is the son of a god and a human. In classic mythology gods and humans were having hero children all the time. You repeat the same story while demanding that it’s different, no one is fooled.
What I have done is demonstrate that no one even imagined a being such as Jesus Christ in advance of his birth. Of course people imagined beings who had one parent who was deity and one who was human, perfectly logical, but that does not even come close to who Jesus is. That's because no one could imagine Jesus Christ until they saw him.

[seebs]

Of course the liberals don't. It must be embarrasing to HAVE no consistent theology, but then try to explain it to others.
Praise jeebus for saving me!
He saved you from hell?
Of course not! There's no such place!
What? :confused:


Hmm.

Lemme ask a question:

Do you actually want to know what some liberals believe about this, or would you prefer to just keep making fun of something without actually asking?

Because it's really not that hard to explain, and most of the people I know who hold "liberal" beliefs on this issue are not particularly inconsistent; they just don't hold the beliefs you're presupposing about what the word "hell" means.

[WishboneDawn]

Theology aside, what distinguishes the liberal Christians I know best (my wife and most of our close friends) is an unwillingness to discuss theology. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, just love to talk about God and Jesus all day long.

I wonder what the motivations for not wanting to talk theology are? I know with some it would just be ignorance. They know they aren't well informed. One thing I've heard about many fundamentalists, Baptists in particular, is that they do have a focus on educating their members that more moderate churches don't. Myself, I'm reluctant (outside of this forum) because I don't want to make a person feel uncomfortable and don't want to feel pushy about religion.

I can and often do talk about theology and the bible with my husband, an atheist, however. No intent to convert or anything, he just finds the subject interesting too. He's a history buff and while neither of us think the bible is particularily accurate we do find it neat in how it reflects some attitudes and practices of the ancient world. We also talk about nasty christian history too. When you've got two people that like ancient and medieval warfare and weapons you sort of HAVE to talk about the nasty bits of christian history. :)

Living with my wife, day in and day out, the one thing I've noticed is that the member of the Trinity she mentions most often in connection with her many charitable activities is the Holy Spirit. She believes the Holy Spirit inspires her and arranges circumstances for her.

I, of course, don't believe that, but if it adds meaning to her life, I wouldn't say a word against it. Now that I think of it, though, it's remarkable that I can't remember a time when she talked about praying to Jesus. Bertrand Russell once remarked that the Catholic Church consisted of Roman canon law, Greek metaphysics, and Hebrew sacred history. My wife must be immersed in the Greek part.

You sound a bit like my husband there. :) He doesn't believe and doesn't see the value but he's seen it has value for me ("Hey, if praying help you keep the house clean and not yell at the kids, I'm all for it.") and is content with that. There's always some teasing back and forth ("Biblethumper!" "Heathen!") between us but it never amounts to more then that.

[WishboneDawn]

Hmm.

Lemme ask a question:

Do you actually want to know what some liberals believe about this, or would you prefer to just keep making fun of something without actually asking?

Because it's really not that hard to explain, and most of the people I know who hold "liberal" beliefs on this issue are not particularly inconsistent; they just don't hold the beliefs you're presupposing about what the word "hell" means.

Considering how they've targeted Angela and all but ignored the liberals or atheists informed about liberal theology here I think they don't really care to know. We're rather boring. We need to start advocating for some strange pseudo-science thingee, like the earth's core is a giant block of ice. Maybe then we'll be interesting.

[Biff the unclean]

What I have done is demonstrate that no one even imagined a being such as Jesus Christ in advance of his birth. Of course people imagined beings who had one parent who was deity and one who was human, perfectly logical, but that does not even come close to who Jesus is. That's because no one could imagine Jesus Christ until they saw him.
What you have done is assert. You never got around to demonstrating anything.
You might want to think about why the holy day which honors the resurrection carries with it the name of the pagan goddess of resurrection, Easter, if no one imagined this before. Or why Paul’s epiphany is in a play by Euripides that was nearly 400 years old in Paul’s time. Or why the Galatians built temples to the Virgin mother Mary in 200 BCE. Or why Dionysus turned a stream into wine during the wedding of the gods.
Just what about Jesus did no one imagine?

[angela2]

What you have done is assert. You never got around to demonstrating anything.
You might want to think about why the holy day which honors the resurrection carries with it the name of the pagan goddess of resurrection, Easter, if no one imagined this before. Or why Paul’s epiphany is in a play by Euripides that was nearly 400 years old in Paul’s time. Or why the Galatians built temples to the Virgin mother Mary in 200 BCE. Or why Dionysus turned a stream into wine during the wedding of the gods.
Just what about Jesus did no one imagine?
They never imagined a monotheistic God alive among them as a fully human being. They never imagined that the death of this human being would mean eternal life for them. They never imagined the God-man among them as the incarnation of a person of the Trinity.

You have a lively imagination. Yes, Easter is a pagan word. I wouldn't think that would surprise you. Certainly a new religion would try to fit into existing structures so as to be more readily accepted.

After that, I'd need to see proof of you claims. But I would guess that what you have is not so much congruence as similarity and coincidence as with Dionysis. These prove nothing.

[charley63]

As that Salon article on the "Religious Left" noted, where are its public spokespeople, people who go out in public like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?

I have three examples: Jim Wallis founder of Sojourners Magazine, an evangelical progressive. His theology is close to Karl Barth's neo-orthodoxy, though more evangelical. He has made dozens of TV appearances, appears at rallies, held a major book tour, sold lots of his books on progressive Christian politics, etc. Is it his fault that most of the time the media doesn't pay attention to him or his magazine? Here's a representative sample <http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/jim-wallis-conversation-among.html>

Second example: Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder of Tikkun Magazine for progressive Judaism. Lerner is orthodox, with a dash of liberalism. He also had made dozens of TV appearances, etc. Sample: <http://tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner>

Third example: John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop and writer. Dozens of TV appearances, etc. Sample: <http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/>.

The "liberal media" seem to prefer to have fundies on their talk shows to liberals.

peace - Charley

ps: For the record, since I'm fairly new here - I am a nontheist Quaker. Some of my best friends are Liberal Christians.

[seebs]

Why should there be ostentatious public spokespeople? Not every belief system lends itself well to grandstanding and the necessary compromises of working with media and giving soundbites.

(Hello, charley63! Good to meet you. I am a theist sorta-Quaker, I keep planning to apply for membership but I never get around to it.)

[Biff the unclean]

They never imagined a monotheistic God alive among them as a fully human being.
That’s true. But of course they had to discard monotheism to do it.

They never imagined that the death of this human being would mean eternal life for them.
They never imagined not having eternal life.

They never imagined the God-man among them as the incarnation of a person of the Trinity.
That simply isn’t true. The Trinity comes straight from Dionysus. He was the son, Zeus was the father. Dionysus descended to Hades rescued the ghost of the blessed virgin mother, Semele, and brought her to Mt Olympus where she was made holy. The original Holy Trinity was three persons in one family, not the nonsensical hodge podge Christians have concocted.

Yes, Easter is a pagan word. I wouldn't think that would surprise you. Certainly a new religion would try to fit into existing structures so as to be more readily accepted.
But this is the resurrection you are talking about. And Easter isn’t a pagan “word” she is a goddess. First you claim no one ever imagined this now it’s fitting in to the pre-existing. Are you conceding the point?

After that, I'd need to see proof of you claims. But I would guess that what you have is not so much congruence as similarity and coincidence as with Dionysis. These prove nothing.
You have neither congruence nor coincidence. You just have plagiarism. The life of Jesus is cobbled together from pre-existing sources.

[angela2]

What the heck does it matter? Those straws you're grasping at won't save you from the ludicrosity of your chosen god.

-Ubercat

And if he has 20 volumes of proof, would you give up the myth? Why ask if you don't care about the answer?
Yes, if he had convincing proof that Jesus Christ was not unique, then somebody has been lying to me. However, since lots of people over a long period of time have affirmed the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, I seriously doubt that there is any convincing evidence to the contrary.

[WishboneDawn]

The "liberal media" seem to prefer to have fundies on their talk shows to liberals.



They sometimes don't seem to want to acknowledge we exist. From last year...

Summary: Major newspapers and broadcast and cable TV news largely ignored a peaceful religious protest against budget cuts to social programs in which more than 100 people were arrested. A search of the Nexis "major newspapers" database -- which contains 87 newspapers -- turned up only 10 mentions of the event.

mediamatters.org/items/200512190004

You've got a point. There are other factors at play and one is a media that pays attention to certain religious voices and not others.

[Ubercat]

Hmm.

Lemme ask a question:

Do you actually want to know what some liberals believe about this, or would you prefer to just keep making fun of something without actually asking?

Because it's really not that hard to explain, and most of the people I know who hold "liberal" beliefs on this issue are not particularly inconsistent; they just don't hold the beliefs you're presupposing about what the word "hell" means.

Well, 20 different liberals will say 20 different things, so I have to really care about what a particular liberal thinks, to make it worth the time to listen. YOUR story won't amount to a hill of beans when I'm dealing with someone else. It's the main hazard of making it up as you go along.

I recall you yourself saying in various posts that the bible supports universalism, the non existence of predestination, and the non existence of hell. Very confusing when each of you has the TRUTH, ignore most of the bible, and none of you match up :rolling:

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Yes, if he had convincing proof that Jesus Christ was not unique, then somebody has been lying to me. However, since lots of people over a long period of time have affirmed the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, I seriously doubt that there is any convincing evidence to the contrary.

Not knowing any better is not the same as lying. How do you "affirm the uniqueness of jesus christ?" That's kind of equivalent to proving that there's no god, isn't it? (can't be done) You can prove that jesus wasn't unique (which has been more than adequately managed in this thread) and you can prove that god exists (which is unlikely, since you've all failed spectacularly for centuries) but you can't prove their opposites.

Hope that made sense.

-Ubercat

[seebs]

Well, here's the thing.

It's fine by me if you don't care what we think.

But if you don't care, and won't ask, and won't even listen if we volunteer... Maybe it would be better not to then go ahead and make pronouncements about what we believe, since you've made it clear that you neither know nor care.

If you don't know, and don't care, you are perhaps not really in a good place to be making the pronouncements.

FWIW, I don't recall ever having claimed to have the "TRUTH". Most of the liberals don't; we'll tell you what we currently believe, and how we got to it, but we won't generally claim exclusive or authoritative knowledge.

So, part of the confusion may be that you are simply ignoring what we say, and pasting over it things that it would have been convenient to you for us to have said, or which someone else said once, which strike you as funny and/or conducive to the arguments you wish to advance. I think this is formally known as a straw man.

Similarly, the neverending accusations that people "ignore most of the Bible" when you have no idea at all what they believe, or why, or what they think about the Bible, strike me as at best counterproductive.

[AthenaAwakened]

Third example: John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop and writer. Dozens of TV appearances, etc. Sample: <http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/>.



Bishop Spong!!!!! fellow TARHEEL

Also on that list add
The Rev. Dr. James Alexander Forbes, Jr. is Senior Minister of The Riverside Church and host of “The Time Is Now” on Air America Radio.
(Just to give your list a little color) ;)

Peace

[fatpie42]

Yes, if he had convincing proof that Jesus Christ was not unique, then somebody has been lying to me. However, since lots of people over a long period of time have affirmed the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, I seriously doubt that there is any convincing evidence to the contrary.

Angela you have been given a ton of evidence and you keep on saying it is not good enough. All you have is a dogmatic assertion of uniqueness at the moment. It's almost as if you think uniqueness is something you don't need to justify, no matter how many similar examples get thrown your way.

[fatpie42]

Not knowing any better is not the same as lying. How do you "affirm the uniqueness of jesus christ?" That's kind of equivalent to proving that there's no god, isn't it?

I know this wasn't what ubercat means, but it caused me to note a new point. Isn't the fact that Jesus is so different from any other understandings of God actually a sign that it is less likely to be in line with what God would actually do?

Revelation is normally checked against what came before. If someone says something which severely contradicts the Bible they tend not to be accepted. Suicide cults are rejected even by pluralists since they feel God would not command such actions.

Wouldn't it be rather odd if Jesus Christ was so far removed from our understanding of God as to be completely incompatible with all views of God that had come before? Would that not suggest that this was actually an entirely different God from the one who had previously revealed themself? (Then again that would explain the views of the gnostics - but weren't those views judged to be heresies?)

[angela2]

Not knowing any better is not the same as lying. How do you "affirm the uniqueness of jesus christ?" That's kind of equivalent to proving that there's no god, isn't it? (can't be done) You can prove that jesus wasn't unique (which has been more than adequately managed in this thread) and you can prove that god exists (which is unlikely, since you've all failed spectacularly for centuries) but you can't prove their opposites.

Hope that made sense.

-Ubercat
Of course it makes sense. I just asked my dog and she agrees. :)

[fatpie42]

Well, 20 different liberals will say 20 different things, so I have to really care about what a particular liberal thinks, to make it worth the time to listen.

Fundies say tons of different stuff. Yet people on this site still listen to every little bit. I'll tell you why that is. It's because the fundamentalists are more entertaining/horrifying.

I presume you aren't interested in Hinduism for the same reason you aren't interested in liberal Christians. It's quite hard to find two Hindus who agree on very much since Hinduism basically encompasses most non-Abrahamic religions in India. (Or are you only interested in the fairly recent fundamentalists who base their views around the Vedas? What is it about militant atheism and religious scripture? Why is it so hard to get around the idea that religion doesn't require a religious text? Do people think that religion didn't exist before the ability to write was developed?)

[angela2]

Angela you have been given a ton of evidence and you keep on saying it is not good enough. All you have is a dogmatic assertion of uniqueness at the moment. It's almost as if you think uniqueness is something you don't need to justify, no matter how many similar examples get thrown your way.
Let's see. Ubercat is similar to fatpie. They both live at the same time, have an interest in Christianity, and post on the same board. Ubercat and fatpie are hence identical. The existence of Ubercat is evidence that fatpie does not exist.

[lpetrich]

Do you have a parellel myth for a person who is fully human and fully divine? To the best of my knowledge none exist. There are myths about gods who pretend to be humans, and myths about people who are the result of the union between gods and humans. But none of these meet the criterion.
I will concede that there are none with that exact theology, though it must be said that over the history of Xianity there have been lots of disagreements and controversy about Jesus Christ's nature.

So him being a god-human hybrid is perhaps the lowest common denominator in Xianity -- and there are lots of such hybrids in Greco-Roman mythology, including historical people like Pythagoras, Plato, and Alexander the Great.

Complexity seems to be a sine qua non for the bible which is a collection of books written at widely different times in different places by many different people.
But I don't see how that justifies waving around the parts one likes as if one was a semiliterate fundamentalist.

I would think that people who are atheists would be familiar with the concept that some things require complex explanations.
I'm well aware of that, but complexity can be a convenient disguse for weakness of argument.

If you're describing your average experience with a liberal christian then I'd agree they don't sound too intellectually rigourous. You're not describing any kind of scholarly liberal theology however, just lay people's ideas.
I will concede that it could well be possible to construct a liberal theology that is something other than an exercise in special pleading; I like to think of Galileo arguing that the Holy Spirit tells how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens ago.

(the Bible...)
Actually, it isn't all Christians have to go on. Nor was it ever intended to be an instruction manual.
Does the Bible itself say so? Where in it is "How to Interpret Me"?

The Bible is often advertised as the perfect instruction manual, as it were; do you believe that it has any flaws?

As to my all powerful God, the ability to do something doesn't imply any conditional need to do that something.
That is, God has a right to be a lazy bum, right?

In what I've studied the thing most often made clear at the very beginning, the thing that defines liberal theology is that the bible is NOT god's word. It is a work of man and spans different times and cultures. Also, the idea that the bible is an accurate history isn't something I've encountered either.
Like who might you be talking about? Who says this sort of thing in plain language and in full public view? And says so without seeming like it's some horrible dark secret that they are very regretful about?

The Trinity comes straight from Dionysus. He was the son, Zeus was the father. Dionysus descended to Hades rescued the ghost of the blessed virgin mother, Semele, and brought her to Mt Olympus where she was made holy. The original Holy Trinity was three persons in one family, not the nonsensical hodge podge Christians have concocted.
That wasn't the prototype for the Xian Trinity at all, and neither were any other notable triplets of deities.

The Xian Trinity is an attempt to make a coherent account of the divinities in the New Testament -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The latter one got called that as a Jewish bowdlerization of "Spirit of God"; it is a long-time Jewish tradition to avoid mentioning God directly by name. Which is why Matthew writes "Kingdom of Heaven" rather than "Kingdom of God", and which is why some present-day Jews write "G-d". As to Jesus Christ being God, only the Gospel of John seems to claim that; the rest of the New Testament mostly pictures him as being distinct from God.

If Xianity had taken a Holy Family approach to the Trinity, its Third Person would have been the Virgin Mary. But though some early sect or other might have believed that, it never came close to becoming orthodoxy.

But this is the resurrection you are talking about. And Easter isn’t a pagan “word” she is a goddess. First you claim no one ever imagined this now it’s fitting in to the pre-existing. Are you conceding the point?
The name "Easter" is an English sort-of translation, and has nothing to do with Easter's original name, Greek Pascha, which was derived from Hebrew Pesach, Passover. Easter has a list of words for "Easter" in several languages

Biff, it looks like you are falling into the fallacy exemplified in the joke about someone who opposed teaching foreign languages in school because "if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it is good enough for me."

Finally, WishboneDawn's comments do make one wonder about the news media and liberal religion -- what's on the minds of those who make decisions of who to feature and who not to feature? But then again, the mainstream news media has been acting like the lackeys of the Bush Administration, so that might explain some of it.

[Biff the unclean]

Let's see. Ubercat is similar to fatpie. They both live at the same time, have an interest in Christianity, and post on the same board. Ubercat and fatpie are hence identical. The existence of Ubercat is evidence that fatpie does not exist.
Angela you have old stories about old gods. As a Christian you are required to see these ancient stories as false. Ridiculous in their simplistic use of magic. Laughable in that their gods are fantasy creatures that never actually existed. And these stories of the old gods are demonstrably false because not only do impossible things happen in them but you can trace them back as retellings of stories of gods older still.

Then you stick the name “Jesus” on them and you throw out all your criteria that you use to determine a stories standing.
When the story is about Dumuzi it’s ridiculous. When it’s retold and it’s about Tammuz it’s even more ludicrous. A third retelling, now with Adonis it’s standing doesn’t improve a bit. But the fourth retelling of the same story, the one where the central character is named Jesus, is suddenly unique. The first three versions are myth, but you have decided that the fourth retelling is history. How does that work?
You don’t believe in magic, so why when you rename magic “miracle” do you abandon your common sense that normally servers you so well?
If I told you the story of my summer vacation and you recognized it as Raiders of the Lost Arkcombined with a Seinfeld episode you wouldn’t buy it for a minute that it was a true story. So why become so gullible over Jesus stories?

[Biff the unclean]

That wasn't the prototype for the Xian Trinity at all, and neither were any other notable triplets of deities.
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost weren’t the prototype for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Pull the other one.


The name "Easter" is an English sort-of translation, and has nothing to do with Easter's original name, Greek Pascha, which was derived from Hebrew Pesach, Passover. Easter has a list of words for "Easter" in several languages

You are falling for apologetic bull shite. Easter is Germatic. Easter is another spelling of Ishtar,(Semitic counterpart of Inanna, Greek Aphrodite, Roman Venus) the goddess of the dawn which is why “sun rise ceremonies” are held on her holyday, and why the direction East has that name. The day commemorates her bringing Adonis (Dumuzi-Tammuz) back to life.
As you can tell by the names out of Gilgamesh this is a really old holyday. It is the original name, not the short lived Pascha.
Check Joseph Campbell Occidental Mythology for a more indepth explaination.

[Ubercat]

Well, here's the thing.

It's fine by me if you don't care what we think.

But if you don't care, and won't ask, and won't even listen if we volunteer... Maybe it would be better not to then go ahead and make pronouncements about what we believe, since you've made it clear that you neither know nor care.

If you don't know, and don't care, you are perhaps not really in a good place to be making the pronouncements.

FWIW, I don't recall ever having claimed to have the "TRUTH". Most of the liberals don't; we'll tell you what we currently believe, and how we got to it, but we won't generally claim exclusive or authoritative knowledge.

So, part of the confusion may be that you are simply ignoring what we say, and pasting over it things that it would have been convenient to you for us to have said, or which someone else said once, which strike you as funny and/or conducive to the arguments you wish to advance. I think this is formally known as a straw man.

Similarly, the neverending accusations that people "ignore most of the Bible" when you have no idea at all what they believe, or why, or what they think about the Bible, strike me as at best counterproductive.

There isn't enough time in my life to listen to what each individual liberal christian believes, as biblegod gave you all individualized and contradictory revelations. As I said earlier, it depends on who I want to listen to, since I can't listen to all of you.

And I remember the many bible verses supporting predestination and hell being quoted for you in earlier threads. You rejected both, despite what the bible says. So yes. You DO ignore most of the bible.

-Ubercat

[seebs]

There isn't enough time in my life to listen to what each individual liberal christian believes, as biblegod gave you all individualized and contradictory revelations. As I said earlier, it depends on who I want to listen to, since I can't listen to all of you.

Yes.

But it does seem odd that the only people you can make the time to listen to are the ones whose positions are most reprehensible to you.

And I remember the many bible verses supporting predestination and hell being quoted for you in earlier threads. You rejected both, despite what the bible says. So yes. You DO ignore most of the bible.

Well, uhm.

No.

Item 1: Even if we took every last one of those verses, all together, and agreed that I "ignore" all of them, they would be a tiny tiny fraction of the Bible.
Item 2: You are assuming that a hostile reader's "worst possible light" interpretation of a single verse, by someone who actively avoids "wasting time" on questions about interpretation, is exactly what the verse means.

The former is enough for even a casual reader who really doesn't care about the issue to dismiss your remark as, at best, unproductive hyperbole.

The latter, however, is the point I think is most important. By carefully and consistently seeking out exactly those beliefs you find most objectionable, and holding them up as the standard by which other beliefs are judged, you are poisoning wells that haven't even been dug yet.

Why bother?

This can serve no purpose but to give you a sense of superiority based in a consistent and systematic misrepresentation. It can't give you any information about what actual people believe or do. You avoid any possible risk of contamination with alternative interpretations. You conflate everything that could maybe be taken as talking about one of a dozen conceptions of "hell" together, and then take them all as proof that the Bible really teaches exactly what it would be most convenient for your argument if it taught.

I can understand not caring. But why do you go to so very much work for this? If, as you say, you don't care and don't have the time, wouldn't it be more rational to simply avoid these discussions, rather than charging into them saying things that you necessarily know are uninformed, because you've put substantial time and effort into suppressing any possible effort to share additional information?

[ELECTROGOD]

Considering how they've targeted Angela and all but ignored the liberals or atheists informed about liberal theology here I think they don't really care to know.
I think you are ignoring how we have not ignored the other "liberal" theists here.

We're rather boring. We need to start advocating for some strange pseudo-science thingee, like the earth's core is a giant block of ice. Maybe then we'll be interesting.
You mean like "Intelligent Design"? Yeah, that'll show us. :rolleyes:

[ELECTROGOD]

But if you don't care, and won't ask, and won't even listen if we volunteer... Maybe it would be better not to then go ahead and make pronouncements about what we believe, since you've made it clear that you neither know nor care.
Hmmm, that's not the version of this board that I see.

If you don't know, and don't care, you are perhaps not really in a good place to be making the pronouncements.
So those engaged in a thread with a theist volunteering their beliefs can "make pronouncements". Good to know since that is what seems to happen on a regular basis here.

FWIW, I don't recall ever having claimed to have the "TRUTH". Most of the liberals don't; we'll tell you what we currently believe, and how we got to it, but we won't generally claim exclusive or authoritative knowledge.
Even if you personally don't claim knowledge of the "truth" there certainly are a lot of other theists (Christians included) who stop by here and feel obligated to tell us what the "truth" is. Then there is the unsaid claim for the "truth" since exclusively adhering (believing) to one version of supernatural being belief implies that you feel that this is the "truth" as opposed to all the other tens of thousands of god beliefs.

So, part of the confusion may be that you are simply ignoring what we say, and pasting over it things that it would have been convenient to you for us to have said, or which someone else said once, which strike you as funny and/or conducive to the arguments you wish to advance. I think this is formally known as a straw man.
I don't see atheists ignoring what theists say but rather focusing on it and then letting them know that their positions make very little sense. This usually followed with an explanation of why it doesn't make sense which is usually ignored by the theist.

Similarly, the neverending accusations that people "ignore most of the Bible" when you have no idea at all what they believe, or why, or what they think about the Bible, strike me as at best counterproductive.
Well, they either DO give us an idea of their beliefs or try to avoid telling us, sometimes because they know and sometimes because they don't.
How is that counter productive? Counter productive to what? Them being informed (or maybe even them actually going to learn more about it themselves) as a result of us making a point of it?

[lpetrich]

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost weren’t the prototype for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Pull the other one.
Biff the unclean, you misunderstand what I was saying.

Zeus, Semele, and Dionysus are NOT the prototype for the Xian Trinity, because they are a father-mother-son trinity, like Osiris, Isis, and Horus. As I pointed out, if the Xian Trinity resembled those trinities, it would be God the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ.

You are falling for apologetic bull shite.
Biff the unclean, it seems that your theories are the male-bovine excrement.

Easter is Germatic. Easter is another spelling of Ishtar,(Semitic counterpart of Inanna, Greek Aphrodite, Roman Venus) the goddess of the dawn which is why “sun rise ceremonies” are held on her holyday, and why the direction East has that name.
LOL. The name "Ishtar" was unknown outside of Mesopotamia before its cuneiform tablets were rediscovered in the 19th cy. And that's a LONG way from England; keep in mind that this was long before modern transportation or communications. "Easter" and "Ishtar" may sound similar in modern English, but people in centuries past had not spoken modern English, and one must keep that in mind.

Akkadian: Ishtar
Hebrew: Ashtoreth
Greek: Astarte

Also, the Bible makes the Passover-Easter connection very clear; it is not surprising that several languages have words for "Easter" derived from the Greek name for Passover.

Eostre was a possible Old English goddess of the dawn, sort of like the Roman goddess Aurora and the Greek goddess Eos, both names meaning "Dawn". The direction of east likely got its name from that source, because east is the direction of the dawn.

[ELECTROGOD]

Let's see. Ubercat is similar to fatpie. They both live at the same time, have an interest in Christianity, and post on the same board. Ubercat and fatpie are hence identical. The existence of Ubercat is evidence that fatpie does not exist.
Hey great example of your faulty use of logic. I think this sums up much of the impasses here.

[seebs]

Hey great example of your faulty use of logic. I think this sums up much of the impasses here.

I think the key is that she was giving an analogy for someone else's logic; I don't think she was trying to assert that it was correct.

[ELECTROGOD]

I think the key is that she was giving an analogy for someone else's logic; I don't think she was trying to assert that it was correct.
And the poor analogy she constructed as an imitation to criticise someone else's logic says it all.

[seebs]

Even if you personally don't claim knowledge of the "truth" there certainly are a lot of other theists (Christians included) who stop by here and feel obligated to tell us what the "truth" is. Then there is the unsaid claim for the "truth" since exclusively adhering (believing) to one version of supernatural being belief implies that you feel that this is the "truth" as opposed to all the other tens of thousands of god beliefs.

Sure... But there's a pretty big difference between "this is what I think is true" and "this is the revealed truth which only idiots disagree with". But since someone out there has used the latter argument, everyone who says anything unpopular gets accused of it sometimes.

I don't see atheists ignoring what theists say but rather focusing on it and then letting them know that their positions make very little sense. This usually followed with an explanation of why it doesn't make sense which is usually ignored by the theist.

There may be selection bias here. I've seen people, time and time again, even just within this thread, insist that my position "doesn't make sense" on the grounds that it contradicts things I already said I disagree with. In short, because my position is inconsistent with someone else's premises.

How is that counter productive? Counter productive to what? Them being informed (or maybe even them actually going to learn more about it themselves) as a result of us making a point of it?

Well, take Ubercat's example of the person who claims not to believe in hell, but then makes some comment about people being saved from it.

If you ask someone "do you believe in a literal place of brimstone and fire", and they say "no", and then you say "so what are we saved from?" and they say "hell", this is not "inconsistent", necessarily; it might be that they use the word "hell" for something else.

But by that time, the regular dogpile has started and everyone's dragging out quotes from Fred Phelps to show "what Christians believe", and the actual Christian is being attacked for failure to hold beliefs that are consistent with someone else's premises.

This happens here. A lot. I tend to just wander away from threads once it's started, because it's a total waste of time. If I wanted to watch people cheerleading each other as they shred a carefully-selected strawman, I could browse Rapture Ready.

[ELECTROGOD]

Sure... But there's a pretty big difference between "this is what I think is true" and "this is the revealed truth which only idiots disagree with". But since someone out there has used the latter argument, everyone who says anything unpopular gets accused of it sometimes.
Theism "unpopular" here? I think that people get "accused" of that which is incorrect or non-sensical might describe the situation better.
There may be selection bias here. I've seen people, time and time again, even just within this thread, insist that my position "doesn't make sense" on the grounds that it contradicts things I already said I disagree with. In short, because my position is inconsistent with someone else's premises. And this is much of the problem with different people claiming the same god-belief, arguing for it and contradicting it between each other. You disagree and agree at the same time.
Well, take Ubercat's example of the person who claims not to believe in hell, but then makes some comment about people being saved from it.
If you ask someone "do you believe in a literal place of brimstone and fire", and they say "no", and then you say "so what are we saved from?" and they say "hell", this is not "inconsistent", necessarily; it might be that they use the word "hell" for something else. And where did they get that idea/word of Christian hell from......anywhere else other than the Bible? How many different descriptions of hell does the Bible provide?
But by that time, the regular dogpile has started and everyone's dragging out quotes from Fred Phelps to show "what Christians believe", and the actual Christian is being attacked for failure to hold beliefs that are consistent with someone else's premises. You are saying that we "attack" Christians by going after stuff that other Christians are saying...but you ignore that we also keep focusing on what the poster in the discussion is saying.
This happens here. A lot. I tend to just wander away from threads once it's started, because it's a total waste of time. If I wanted to watch people cheerleading each other as they shred a carefully-selected strawman, I could browse Rapture Ready. I realize you wander away as I've asked you a number of questions about things you've said before in other threads only to have them remain unanswered.

[Biff the unclean]

Biff the unclean, you misunderstand what I was saying.

Zeus, Semele, and Dionysus are NOT the prototype for the Xian Trinity, because they are a father-mother-son trinity, like Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
I understand what you are saying. And I understand that you are incorrect. The Dionysus Trinity is specifically the Father, Son and of all the unlikely things a Holy Ghost. I mean how bizarre and outlandish an entity is that, a holy ghost? That the virgin mother is included in the Trinity makes perfects sense and that she is a ghost follows the plot line of the story perfectly.
The Christians also have a Virgin Mother as part of the story line. But the bizarre Holy Ghost is introduced with no explanation at all, not even any character development. The authors simply assumed that their readers knew what it was. Since the center of the Dionysusian religion was Byzantium they weren’t making a big stretch

LOL. The name "Ishtar" was unknown outside of Mesopotamia before its cuneiform tablets were rediscovered in the 19th cy. And that's a LONG way from England; keep in mind that this was long before modern transportation or communications.
Actually the goddess Venus in her many forms was worshiped across the entire Roman Empire. And we are not talking about the dark ages here but about Imperial Rome which made a habit of stationing it’s legions from the middle east, who worshiped Ishtar, in the west of Europe and vise versa. Communications across the empire were rapid and constant.

"Easter" and "Ishtar" may sound similar in modern English, but people in centuries past had not spoken modern English, and one must keep that in mind.

Akkadian: Ishtar
Hebrew: Ashtoreth
Greek: Astarte
And yet there is her holyday on the Christian calendar at the same time as on the Hellenistic. There still is her name as it was adopted by the Germanic tribes. There still is the resurrection celebrated just as it was hundreds of years before Jesus. There still is the religious observance at dawn for the goddess of the dawn. There still are even her silly eggs.

Also, the Bible makes the Passover-Easter connection very clear; it is not surprising that several languages have words for "Easter" derived from the Greek name for Passover.
Nor is it surprising that in several languages, including our own, the original holyday of the resurrection of Adonis has kept it’s original name.

Eostre was a possible Old English goddess of the dawn, sort of like the Roman goddess Aurora and the Greek goddess Eos, both names meaning "Dawn". The direction of east likely got its name from that source, because east is the direction of the dawn.
Actually a version of Venus/Aphrodite.
Again, Joseph Campbell’s Occidental Mythology the scholarship is already done; you don’t have to keep speculating.

[fatpie42]

Let's see. Ubercat is similar to fatpie. They both live at the same time, have an interest in Christianity, and post on the same board. Ubercat and fatpie are hence identical. The existence of Ubercat is evidence that fatpie does not exist.

Um... I'm not sure what you think you are refuting with this bogus argument. Ubercat and I are both humans. Humans have similarities.

Dionysus, Krishna, and Jesus are all God-men. Thus they all have similarities.

Being similar does not mean 'identical'. It does however mean that I am not unique in being human and Jesus is not unique in being a God-man.

I can't help but feel stupid writing this post as I know you already knew everything I just said.

[Ubercat]

But it does seem odd that the only people you can make the time to listen to are the ones whose positions are most reprehensible to you.

I don't think so. There are too many fallacies in the world to cover them all. So why not focus on fixing the worst?

Well, uhm.

No.

Item 1: Even if we took every last one of those verses, all together, and agreed that I "ignore" all of them, they would be a tiny tiny fraction of the Bible.
Item 2: You are assuming that a hostile reader's "worst possible light" interpretation of a single verse, by someone who actively avoids "wasting time" on questions about interpretation, is exactly what the verse means.


Obviously the majority of the bible doesn't deal with what comes after death. But of the parts that do, hell is very well supported by the majority. So what if the Israelites had no concept of infinite turture. biblegod magically changed between the OT and the NT. Further evidence that christianity was an invention, based loosely on the OT.

The latter, however, is the point I think is most important. By carefully and consistently seeking out exactly those beliefs you find most objectionable, and holding them up as the standard by which other beliefs are judged, you are poisoning wells that haven't even been dug yet.

Why bother?

Wells based on nonsense beliefs and magical thinking NEED to get poisoned. Humanity can't afford to waste time on BS anymore.

This can serve no purpose but to give you a sense of superiority based in a consistent and systematic misrepresentation. It can't give you any information about what actual people believe or do. You avoid any possible risk of contamination with alternative interpretations. You conflate everything that could maybe be taken as talking about one of a dozen conceptions of "hell" together, and then take them all as proof that the Bible really teaches exactly what it would be most convenient for your argument if it taught.

I can understand not caring. But why do you go to so very much work for this? If, as you say, you don't care and don't have the time, wouldn't it be more rational to simply avoid these discussions, rather than charging into them saying things that you necessarily know are uninformed, because you've put substantial time and effort into suppressing any possible effort to share additional information?

You're arguing about whether the easter bunny is pink or pastel blue, and I don't want to get involved in the minutiae. THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY.

-Ubercat

[EthnAlln]

You are falling for apologetic bull shite. Easter is Germatic. Easter is another spelling of Ishtar,(Semitic counterpart of Inanna, Greek Aphrodite, Roman Venus) the goddess of the dawn which is why “sun rise ceremonies” are held on her holyday, and why the direction East has that name. The day commemorates her bringing Adonis (Dumuzi-Tammuz) back to life.
As you can tell by the names out of Gilgamesh this is a really old holyday. It is the original name, not the short lived Pascha.
Check Joseph Campbell Occidental Mythology for a more indepth explaination.

I dunno about this one, Biff. The German word for Easter is Ostern, again derived from the direction (East, which is Ost in German). That of course is where the Sun rises, so the connection with Ishtar is also plausible. Strange that French and Russian use Pascha (well, pâques in French; the circumflex indicates that the s has been omitted). I wonder why this word never got into English and German.

[angela2]

Um... I'm not sure what you think you are refuting with this bogus argument. Ubercat and I are both humans. Humans have similarities.

Dionysus, Krishna, and Jesus are all God-men. Thus they all have similarities.

Being similar does not mean 'identical'. It does however mean that I am not unique in being human and Jesus is not unique in being a God-man.

I can't help but feel stupid writing this post as I know you already knew everything I just said.
Your feelings about writing this post were correct. Since Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is unique, similarity won't do. Let me try one more time. I'm willing to be convinced if you can show me a being other than Jesus Christ with 2 natures, one fully and completely divine, and one fully and completely human.

Because you don't believe the 2 nature/one person doctrine, you think some being posited to be half divine and half human is good enough. Well, that's fine for you, but the question was asked of me. And I believe the doctrine. So the being presented as showing the fallacy of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ must address my beliefs not yours.

Nobody seems up to that challenge.

[TNorthover]

Your feelings about writing this post were correct. Since Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is unique, similarity won't do.

Everyone and every god is unique.

OK, so Jesus has a slightly different interpretation of the classical demi-god myth, so what? As others have said, differentiating your religion by making even more outlandish claims than predecessors doesn't make it true (*cough*scientology*cough*).

[angela2]

Wells based on nonsense beliefs and magical thinking NEED to get poisoned.
Whoa, that's big dog scarey.

How about the people who drink from those wells? Sounds like you are advocating poisoning them.
Humanity can't afford to waste time on BS anymore.
Let me see if I got this straight. Some of humanity must die to save the rest of humanity, and you're the one who gets to decide who goes to the ovens.

[fatpie42]

Your feelings about writing this post were correct. Since Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is unique, similarity won't do. Let me try one more time. I'm willing to be convinced if you can show me a being other than Jesus Christ with 2 natures, one fully and completely divine, and one fully and completely human.

Because you don't believe the 2 nature/one person doctrine, you think some being posited to be half divine and half human is good enough. Well, that's fine for you, but the question was asked of me. And I believe the doctrine. So the being presented as showing the fallacy of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ must address my beliefs not yours.

Nobody seems up to that challenge.

It's not just that I think that something half-divine and half-human is good enough. It is that I think Krishna is FULLY humans and FULLY divine. You don't agree and while neither of us agrees on this point the debate cannot progress.

[angela2]

OK, so Jesus has a slightly different interpretation of the classical demi-god myth, so what?
Slightly different? In whose opinion?
As others have said, differentiating your religion by making even more outlandish claims than predecessors doesn't make it true (*cough*scientology*cough*).
This is not a discussion of the nature of Christ. EG (or was it UC?) accepted my definition (at least for me) when he asked if proof of another being with 2 natures would make any difference to me. I told him honestly that it would. But so far, I have not seen any such proof, just obsfucation and attempts to change the subject.

[angela2]

It's not just that I think that something half-divine and half-human is good enough. It is that I think Krishna is FULLY humans and FULLY divine. You don't agree and while neither of us agrees on this point the debate cannot progress.
Are you serious? If you are, please explain you thought on Krishna (while I go find that unbiased book in my library). :)

[fatpie42]

Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu.
Jesus is an incarnation of Yahweh.

I'm not getting into a petty dispute on this unless you can put something more than dogmatic assertions on the table.

[angela2]

Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu.
Jesus is an incarnation of Yahweh.

I'm not getting into a petty dispute on this unless you can put something more than dogmatic assertions on the table.
Not again. My dogmatic assertions, as you call them, are not the discussion. But since you seem to think they are, I suggest you start another thread. Because I'm not discussing the nature of Jesus Christ here.

[JamesBannon]

Are you serious? If you are, please explain you thought on Krishna (while I go find that unbiased book in my library). :)

Presupposition? What do you know about Krishna? What do you know of Hindu legends?

[fatpie42]

Not again. My dogmatic assertions, as you call them, are not the discussion.

What is your point? The uniqueness of Jesus' incarnation is your dogmatic assertion. If you had anything else you wished to assert you need to make it a little clearer.

[seebs]

I don't think so. There are too many fallacies in the world to cover them all. So why not focus on fixing the worst?

Well, one reason might be that the people you're arguing with are often not the ones whose arguments you're arguing against.

This would be the very definition of a straw man; choosing to argue against something that you have good arguments against rather than anything that's being advanced by other participants in a discussion.

Obviously the majority of the bible doesn't deal with what comes after death. But of the parts that do, hell is very well supported by the majority. So what if the Israelites had no concept of infinite turture. biblegod magically changed between the OT and the NT. Further evidence that christianity was an invention, based loosely on the OT.

You can have one of those arguments or the other, but I don't think you can have both.

Furthermore, you're still ignoring the question of what Hell is, which turns out to be rather central to any such discussions.

Wells based on nonsense beliefs and magical thinking NEED to get poisoned. Humanity can't afford to waste time on BS anymore.

And yet, the only evidence you have that these beliefs are wrong is based on a militant and willful refusal to even find out what they are! You are actively refusing to find out what some people believe, and then saying that, because you don't know what it is, but you know that some other people believe some crazy stuff, it's wrong.

This ain't rational.

I was talking about evolution with some kids a while back. One of them explained that, having studied evolution in school for about four weeks, she understood it well enough to reject it. For instance, one of the kids could give the example that one of her high school teachers had taught that "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny", and that the "fact" that human fetuses were essentially fish at one point in their development was ironclad proof that we evolved from other life forms.

The only difference between her view of evolution, and your view of liberal Christianity, is that she was a lot more open to finding out what people believed than you are. Four whole weeks, probably a whole 45-minute period a day! That's a lot more than the ten minutes you refuse to spend even finding out what anyone believes.

You're arguing about whether the easter bunny is pink or pastel blue, and I don't want to get involved in the minutiae. THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY.

Conveniently, it turns out I don't believe in the easter bunny either. You just remember that some guy somewhere said something which it would be really funny to make fun of by calling it an easter bunny. My belief is actually that there's noticeable seasonal cycles in animal reproduction.

But since you're so busy yelling "EASTER BUNNY LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", you'll never find that out.

And as I said, I don't really see any problem with this; what I see a problem with is that, after going on at some length to actively affirm that you are intentionally avoiding information on a topic, and that you are seeking to shred straw men rather than arguing with the other participants in the discussion... You still insist on making dogmatic pronouncements about what people "actually" believe, despite the fact that not only are you probably wrong, you know and admit that you are cherry-picking the worst examples of anything you've seen, not necessarily anything that's actually on the table.

I don't see why you bother. You've managed to create a situation where not only are you unlikely to persuade anyone, you've actually taken steps to prevent anyone you actually talk to from being persuaded. You might as well try to take up Randi's challenge, then spend your time trying to prove that humans are self-aware, because hey, there was one guy once who said he was a skeptic who said they weren't, and that's a hell of a lot worse than anything Randi's said, so why not argue against the important one?

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
Wells based on nonsense beliefs and magical thinking NEED to get poisoned.

Whoa, that's big dog scarey.

How about the people who drink from those wells? Sounds like you are advocating poisoning them.

Quote:
Humanity can't afford to waste time on BS anymore.


Let me see if I got this straight. Some of humanity must die to save the rest of humanity, and you're the one who gets to decide who goes to the ovens.

That big swoosh you just heard was your "point" flying past my head. I like the way you guys can't make a meaningful argument, so you dodge by turning figurative when the discussion is literal, and literal when the discussion is figurative. Talk about poisoning the well!!

And what do you mean with the talk about ovens? If that comment had anything to do with the discussion, I certainly didn't get it. When you know you're beat you just shout "Nazi!" and run while your victim tries to prove he's not Hitler? Anyone with a REAL god on their side could do alot better than that.

-Ubercat

[angela2]

Your own words demonstrated a desire to be rid of people who disagree with you be it literal or figurative.

You also held yourself up as the one who should decide who should be gotten rid of.

I assume you meant it figuratively, but such thinking can become hateful actions all too easily. Nietzsche never intended his idea of Superman (Ubermench) to be used as justification for the attempted extermination of the Jews.

[angela2]

Presupposition? What do you know about Krishna? What do you know of Hindu legends?
Do I smell an assumption here? :D

[Ubercat]

For the third time: I don't have time to learn what every individual christian believes.

I DO know that I've never seen nor heard the slightest valid evidence for the existence of ANY god. My own findings have been coroberated(?) by enough fellow skeptics, that I see no need to throw my critical thinking out the window every time I meet a new christian. If there's a god, and he wants me to know about him, he's perfectly capable of knocking on my door and saying "Hi." If he wants to act like he doesn't exist, fine, I'm happy to play along. I'm content to let a god who chooses to be insignificant to my life, be insignificant to my life.

What's YOUR conception of hell? since you've made such a sticking point of it. Does it involve some form of suffering? If so, who CARES about the details? What does it matter?

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Your own words demonstrated a desire to be rid of people who disagree with you be it literal or figurative.

You also held yourself up as the one who should decide who should be gotten rid of.

I assume you meant it figuratively, but such thinking can become hateful actions all too easily. Nietzsche never intended his idea of Superman (Ubermench) to be used as justification for the attempted extermination of the Jews.

Ok. I think I understand now. I don't want to "get rid" of christians though. I want them to wake up. The planet is going to hell in a hand basket, and most of you don't care. jeebus gonna come REAL soon and make it all better, so what does the environment matter? jeebus been gonna come real soon for 2000 years now.

If we're still around in 100 years, we'll probably STILL be living in the end times, and all the faithful will know why the faithful of 100 years earlier were mistaken. But he'll DEFINITELY be right around the corner then.

Your religion is pathetic. And even worse, it's dangerous. We're playing for our lives on our tiny blue dot. No second chances.

-Ubercat

[seebs]

For the third time: I don't have time to learn what every individual christian believes.

I know.

But this does leave me wondering why you keep actively engaging people and telling them, despite their protestations to the contrary, what you have decided they believe.

What's YOUR conception of hell? since you've made such a sticking point of it. Does it involve some form of suffering? If so, who CARES about the details? What does it matter?

It matters in that you presented an example of an allegedly "inconsistent" position which was based entirely on your misconceptions. Confronted with people who deny the "literal fiery hell", you accuse them of inconsistency if they claim there is salvation from something else. That's just silly.

I tend towards a Great Divorce view of hell. How does it matter? It matters in that, since I don't think people are being "punished" in a retributive sense at all, all of the arguments about disproportionate retribution are non-starters.

I don't particularly expect you to like this, or approve of it, or believe it to be true. What I would like, however, would be for you to stop asserting that the position is inconsistent on the grounds that I've said I don't believe in a literal lake of fire that people are burned in.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to learn everything about every belief system. However, if you don't have the time to find out, stop making declarations based on something you are explicitly avoiding learning anything about. Don't call people "inconsistent" when the blunt fact is that you neither know nor care what they believe. Before you can call someone's position inconsistent, you really do have to know what it is.

[seebs]

Ok. I think I understand now. I don't want to "get rid" of christians though. I want them to wake up. The planet is going to hell in a hand basket, and most of you don't care. jeebus gonna come REAL soon and make it all better, so what does the environment matter? jeebus been gonna come real soon for 2000 years now.

If we're still around in 100 years, we'll probably STILL be living in the end times, and all the faithful will know why the faithful of 100 years earlier were mistaken. But he'll DEFINITELY be right around the corner then.

Your religion is pathetic. And even worse, it's dangerous. We're playing for our lives on our tiny blue dot. No second chances.

Once again:

Please stop telling us what we believe.

Most of the Christians participating in this thread have explicitly and vociferously disclaimed the "we don't have to care about the environment, Jesus will fix it" view.

Lemme try an analogy.

Imagine that, every time you talk about something related to your belief system, you are attacked on the grounds that atheists have no respect for life. After all, look at Stalin! Look at Mao! When you point out that you, personally, have respect for life, you are told that there are a lot of atheists, no two of them believe the same thing, and it's ridiculous to spend time finding out exactly what any given atheist believes.

You are then told that all that's necessary is that you stop being an atheist, because people are dying out there, and atheists have no respect for life.

Which is, in fact, exactly what you just got done pointing out was an error.

Could you see how this could be annoying, and possibly be a significant barrier to a productive conversation? If so, then stop doing it.

I know you think this Jesus stuff is all crazy, but "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not uniquely Christian, and you might find it a very productive first step towards arguing with the actual things you object to, rather than anything and everything that might be found in the same person as something you object to.

[JamesBannon]

Do I smell an assumption here? :D

Not from me. I was responding to the "Are you serious?" part of your comment. Face it. No matter what evidence is presented to you, if it doesn't fit with your presupposed vision of your so-called god you will reject it without further consideration. If this wasn't the case you'd have given up the "Jesus is God" delusion long ago. Let me state this quite clearly: The fully man, fully god hypothesis is both philosphically and evidentially bankrupt. You have no solid base on which to base such a belief.

I'm with Ubercat on this one. We don't have the time to waste on hating each other because of ridiculous theological notions. They poison people's minds and prevent them from thinking clearly. I can understand these kinds of beliefs in people who don't have access to modern ideas but for the life of me I cannot understand willing subjugation to such ideas in supposedly educated people.

[Nice Squirrel]

Ok. I think I understand now. I don't want to "get rid" of christians though. I want them to wake up. The planet is going to hell in a hand basket, and most of you don't care. jeebus gonna come REAL soon and make it all better, so what does the environment matter? jeebus been gonna come real soon for 2000 years now.
I have to agree with Seebs, plese stop assuming what we believe. There are strong environmental factions withing the various Christian churches looking to protect creation (a.k.a. the evironment) and hand this planet down to our children (a.k.a. not end time focused)

Your religion is pathetic. And even worse, it's dangerous. We're playing for our lives on our tiny blue dot. No second chances.

:rolleyes: Obviously your hostility to those who believe different than you is not a solution to the environmental problems we are facing.

[seebs]

FWIW, on environmentalism:

I go to the very small Wednesday night services at my church. We generally have about 7-10 people.

Of the five or six cars this implies, four are hybrids.

Every light in the building (and every light in my house) is flourescent.

I have been militantly telecommuting since something like 1997.

We buy cheap, sturdy, clothes, and wear them to shreds.

So, uhm. Yeah. I suppose everyone bitching about the Christian track record on the environment drives a vehicle with better than 50mpg, or takes public transportation? :)

[Biff the unclean]

I dunno about this one, Biff. The German word for Easter is Ostern, again derived from the direction (East, which is Ost in German). That of course is where the Sun rises, so the connection with Ishtar is also plausible.
You are a bit backwards. The directions name is derived from the goddess. And the sun doesn’t actually rise in true east EXCEPT at the holyday. When you take into account that these are myths from an agrarian society associating resurrection of a man/god (Adonis) with the moment that spring begins, it all falls into place. No matter which man/god comes back to life in which myth it is always on the same date (or on the next full moon)

Strange that French and Russian use Pascha (well, pâques in French; the circumflex indicates that the s has been omitted). I wonder why this word never got into English and German.
The Germanic kept to the old ways. You’ll notice that today is Tuesday.

[seebs]

I'm with Ubercat on this one. We don't have the time to waste on hating each other because of ridiculous theological notions. They poison people's minds and prevent them from thinking clearly. I can understand these kinds of beliefs in people who don't have access to modern ideas but for the life of me I cannot understand willing subjugation to such ideas in supposedly educated people.

Hmm.

When you say these things "poison peoples' minds", do you have any evidence that this is more true of religious beliefs than, say, political beliefs, or non-religious moral beliefs?

Is your assertion that, because I am religious, I am inevitably going to be less capable of, say, programming a computer, than someone who is not religious?

If all you're saying is "people who have strong emotional attachments to preconceived notions tend not to reevaluate them carefully", well, it's not news, and it's hardly unique to religion at all; I can show you people like that in both branches of the US's political party, or in debates on anything from whether or not "digital music" exists to the relationship between racial groups.

If you're saying that, in some way, religion has a definite effect which "poisons the mind" in a way that inhibits thought on other topics, I'd love to see real evidence. (No, the correlation to education doesn't count, because there's an obvious selection bias in that some religious groups actively advocate against higher education.)

[fatpie42]

I tend towards a Great Divorce view of hell. How does it matter? It matters in that, since I don't think people are being "punished" in a retributive sense at all, all of the arguments about disproportionate retribution are non-starters.

What is the 'Great Divorce'? If it means that people are divorced from God in a way that is unpleasant and if this happens eternally, then that isn't much better than 'fiery hell' is it? Of course, you'd need to explain in more detail...

[seebs]

What is the 'Great Divorce'? If it means that people are divorced from God in a way that is unpleasant and if this happens eternally, then that isn't much better than 'fiery hell' is it? Of course, you'd need to explain in more detail...

The reason it's in italics is that it's the name of a book. C. S. Lewis wrote a fiction book, titled The Great Divorce, in which he explores the notion of a hell that people can leave at any time.

Why don't they? Because it offends their sensibilities to, for instance, forgive other people.

Whether such a hell ends up being eternal or not is hard to predict... But if the doors are locked from the inside, there's nothing preventing anyone from leaving.

Another alternative view is the Orthodox belief characterized by the River of Fire, where everyone ends up in the same place, and in the same situation, and what they make of it is up to them; some people would find it unbearable, others would find it delightful.

This is not a hard thing to imagine, and corresponds very well with the very active Christian promotion of forgiveness and love.

[angela2]

Ok. I think I understand now. I don't want to "get rid" of christians though. I want them to wake up. The planet is going to hell in a hand basket, and most of you don't care. jeebus gonna come REAL soon and make it all better, so what does the environment matter?
You're wrong about this Christian, and lots of others.
Your religion is pathetic.
How would you know since you obviously don't know what my religion teaches.

[angela2]

Not from me. I was responding to the "Are you serious?" part of your comment. Face it. No matter what evidence is presented to you, if it doesn't fit with your presupposed vision of your so-called god you will reject it without further consideration. If this wasn't the case you'd have given up the "Jesus is God" delusion long ago.
So you not only know better than me what I should do but also what I'm going to do.

[JamesBannon]

So you not only know better than me what I should do but also what I'm going to do.
In this case yes unless you get a sudden attack of very serious doubt - which incidentally I hope you experience, it's not that bad you know.

[fatpie42]

The reason it's in italics is that it's the name of a book. C. S. Lewis wrote a fiction book, titled The Great Divorce, in which he explores the notion of a hell that people can leave at any time.

*Groan!* C.S. Lewis? Oh for goodness sake....


Why don't they? Because it offends their sensibilities to, for instance, forgive other people.

Whether such a hell ends up being eternal or not is hard to predict... But if the doors are locked from the inside, there's nothing preventing anyone from leaving.

Another alternative view is the Orthodox belief characterized by the River of Fire, where everyone ends up in the same place, and in the same situation, and what they make of it is up to them; some people would find it unbearable, others would find it delightful.

This is not a hard thing to imagine, and corresponds very well with the very active Christian promotion of forgiveness and love.

The idea of a place that some find to be a place of horrific torment while others find to be a place of delight, is completely absurd. It never ceases to amaze me when people take Lewis' ridiculous ideas seriously.

[angela2]

In this case yes unless you get a sudden attack of very serious doubt - which incidentally I hope you experience, it's not that bad you know.
That's the height of arrogance.

BTW, I was raised RC and gave up any theistic belief in my late twenties (?). I have to laugh when people assume I've never experienced atheism. I also have to laugh when people talk about being able to think more freely as an atheist. I found it much more restrictive than any religious belief. After all, there was so much that other people thought existed which I could not consider if I were true to my atheism. I became a Protestant in my 40's. All-in-all I can't point to one single thing that atheism did for me that Christianity doesn't do a whole lot better. Just my experience of course.

So yes, it is that bad, or at least it was for me.

[JamesBannon]

Hmm.

When you say these things "poison peoples' minds", do you have any evidence that this is more true of religious beliefs than, say, political beliefs, or non-religious moral beliefs?

Is your assertion that, because I am religious, I am inevitably going to be less capable of, say, programming a computer, than someone who is not religious?

If all you're saying is "people who have strong emotional attachments to preconceived notions tend not to reevaluate them carefully", well, it's not news, and it's hardly unique to religion at all; I can show you people like that in both branches of the US's political party, or in debates on anything from whether or not "digital music" exists to the relationship between racial groups.

If you're saying that, in some way, religion has a definite effect which "poisons the mind" in a way that inhibits thought on other topics, I'd love to see real evidence. (No, the correlation to education doesn't count, because there's an obvious selection bias in that some religious groups actively advocate against higher education.)

I am not accusing you of being unintelligent or uneducated. What I'm wondering, seriously, is how any educated person can believe such things. It is just so incongruous. There is no real difference between believing in god and believing in the Celestial teapot and we all know that the latter belief is nonsense. Given that you know this and are well aware of the history of the human species, it just seems so ludicrous to persist in a belief you know to be largely mythological.

As for poisoning the mind I see plenty of evidence of that every day. I live in a society infected with sectarianism and it infects the uneducated and educated alike. I see proponents of ID and creationism trying to suggest that it should be taught in a science class. Even on this board we atheists are railed against for having no grounding for morality and other bull. This all stems from magical thinking and unquestioned acceptance of so-called divine authority. Come to think of it, perhaps it's not religion that's the problem but rather the human's inability to actually think independently of some kind of absolute authority. If people need some kind of divine authority, they might as well accept the notion of the divine rights of kings or the infallibity of the pope. I doubt that you seebs would accept such notions, so the question still stands.

[seebs]

*Groan!* C.S. Lewis? Oh for goodness sake....

The idea of a place that some find to be a place of horrific torment while others find to be a place of delight, is completely absurd. It never ceases to amaze me when people take Lewis' ridiculous ideas seriously.

How is it absurd? I can point you at tons of them, right now.

Ever been to one of those sites with little dollies and glittery signatures? Some people like 'em. Some people hate them.

Imagine, if you will, a place which is like a nice park on a summer day. In this place are a number of leather fairies, quite open about what they are, singing show tunes.

I think it's pretty damn obvious that some people would like this more than others.

So maybe you could expand a bit on why it's ridiculous to imagine a situation which some people find pleasant and others painful.

[JamesBannon]

That's the height of arrogance.

BTW, I was raised RC and gave up any theistic belief in my late twenties (?). I have to laugh when people assume I've never experienced atheism. I also have to laugh when people talk about being able to think more freely as an atheist. I found it much more restrictive than any religious belief. After all, there was so much that other people thought existed which I could not consider if I were true to my atheism. I became a Protestant in my 40's. All-in-all I can't point to one single thing that atheism did for me that Christianity doesn't do a whole lot better. Just my experience of course.

So yes, it is that bad, or at least it was for me.

No it's not. It's just a statement of what I believe to be true. I was educated in Roman Catholic institutions up until I was 18 years of age. Thankfully I managed to escape that particular prison of the mind. I have never looked back.

[seebs]

I am not accusing you of being unintelligent or uneducated. What I'm wondering, seriously, is how any educated person can believe such things. It is just so incongruous. There is no real difference between believing in god and believing in the Celestial teapot and we all know that the latter belief is nonsense. Given that you know this and are well aware of the history of the human species, it just seems so ludicrous to persist in a belief you know to be largely mythological.

Well, here's the thing: Obviously, we have different premises.

In this case, I don't think I know it to be "largely mythological" in the sense you mean.

I believe in all sorts of things; I believe in objective morality, and I believe in transfinite mathematics, and complex numbers. I believe that other people have internal states which I can guess at by observing their behavior, but not see directly.

I believe that it is possible to distinguish between experiencing love and experiencing other things which are not love. I have compared my experiences to the descriptions other people give, and concluded that "love" is a word which refers to a thing I have experienced.

As it happens, some of the descriptions people have of "God" appear to refer to something I have experienced.

I have poked at this question a lot, but it seems to me that there comes a time when the rational course is to accept that your experiences reflect external reality, and use the observations other people have had of things that they describe as similar as a basis for speculation about that reality.

As for poisoning the mind I see plenty of evidence of that every day.

Hmm. Do you?

I live in a society infected with sectarianism and it infects the uneducated and educated alike. I see proponents of ID and creationism trying to suggest that it should be taught in a science class. Even on this board we atheists are railed against for having no grounding for morality and other bull. This all stems from magical thinking and unquestioned acceptance of so-called divine authority.

I don't know about that. I mean, I could certainly argue that at least some atheists have no grounding for morality, on the grounds that at least some atheists insist that there is no such thing.

Which is to say, insofar as I'd ever make such a claim, it's got nothing to do with magical thinking, and I have never gone in for unquestioned acceptance of so-called divine authority.

In short, while I do not doubt that the things you describe have happened, I see no evidence that they are absolutely inevitable, which suggests that it's not fair to say that religious belief poisons the mind.

Come to think of it, perhaps it's not religion that's the problem but rather the human's inability to actually think independently of some kind of absolute authority. If people need some kind of divine authority, they might as well accept the notion of the divine rights of kings or the infallibity of the pope. I doubt that you seebs would accept such notions, so the question still stands.

I don't see why. I don't see any basis for accepting any authority I've ever encountered without question. I'm not big on authority structures; I think they are deeply harmful.

But that means that, while I'm not about to let some guy in a suit tell me that I should be mean to gays, I'm also not about to let some guy on the internet tell me that substantial chunks of my direct personal experience are "just mythological".

[JamesBannon]

As it happens, some of the descriptions people have of "God" appear to refer to something I have experienced.
So have I and lots of them. I have also experienced all the other things you have or at least similar things. The difference is I do not attribute them to the existence of magical beings that I have zero evidential support for.

And why only particularly one god? Why not zeus, hera, kali, aboriginal dreamtime spirits or whatever? Could it be that cultural bias plays a part here? And if so, what does that actually mean when it comes to affirming / denying the existence of such beings?

[Biff the unclean]

I have to laugh when people assume I've never experienced atheism. I also have to laugh when people talk about being able to think more freely as an atheist. I found it much more restrictive than any religious belief.
So you experienced Atheism and it’s nothing like Atheists say. And you have to laugh because Atheists obviously don’t know what Atheism is.
I’m sure you are eliciting a lot of laughter.

[fatpie42]

How is it absurd? I can point you at tons of them, right now.

Ever been to one of those sites with little dollies and glittery signatures? Some people like 'em. Some people hate them.

Imagine, if you will, a place which is like a nice park on a summer day. In this place are a number of leather fairies, quite open about what they are, singing show tunes.

I think it's pretty damn obvious that some people would like this more than others.

So maybe you could expand a bit on why it's ridiculous to imagine a situation which some people find pleasant and others painful.

So what are you saying? That when people who reject God die, they go to a place where they are inflicted with things they mildly dislike, but all believers happen to love? This idea is absurd.

Are you seriously saying that when Jesus says that some people will 'cry and grind their teeth' he is talking about their reaction to a bad song or poor decorating? You might take this seriously, but I cannot.

[seebs]

So have I and lots of them. I have also experienced all the other things you have or at least similar things. The difference is I do not attribute them to the existence of magical beings that I have zero evidential support for.

I consider the experiences evidential support.

I know this may sound crazy, but I base my beliefs in things external to me on the assumption that I am experiencing things external to me.

I have found no good alternatives to this belief.

And why only particularly one god? Why not zeus, hera, kali, aboriginal dreamtime spirits or whatever? Could it be that cultural bias plays a part here? And if so, what does that actually mean when it comes to affirming / denying the existence of such beings?

A very good question! I think it suggests strongly that a fair amount of what we believe about the things we experience may be questionable or incorrect. This is one of the reasons I am not much of a dogmatist on points of theology.

But I don't generally leap from "at least some of my specific theories about this entity are probably wrong" to "there is no entity at all and it's all just made up". If I go to the mall, because I think there's an electronics store, and I find that there is no such store, I don't declare myself an amallist and make fun of people for their ludicrous and conflicting beliefs in alleged "malls" when they can't even agree on what stores are in the so-called "mall".

[JamesBannon]

Seebs,
That last analogy was a bit of a stretch because I have good reason to believe that malls exist even though I have never actually been in one (well, not an American one anyway). But, as you wish. You are entitled to your beliefs and you are a reasonable person. I just wish some of the other believers were the same!

[seebs]

So what are you saying? That when people who reject God die, they go to a place where they are inflicted with things they mildly dislike, but all believers happen to love? This idea is absurd.

Is it?

What if the thing that's there is "other people". And it's not just any other people, but the ones you spent your whole life feeling superior to?

Are you seriously saying that when Jesus says that some people will 'cry and grind their teeth' he is talking about their reaction to a bad song or poor decorating? You might take this seriously, but I cannot.

How about their reaction to, say, the discovery that they no longer have the power to torment the people they hate?

Imagine, if you will, Fred Phelps spending eternity aware that Matthew Shepherd is doing just fine, and is not on fire.

That is hell.

The cure for hell is not to hate people; not to be unhappy unless someone out there is miserable and you're benefitting from it. Most people have someone, or some group, out there that they have to consider themselves better than to be happy.

[seebs]

Seebs,
That last analogy was a bit of a stretch because I have good reason to believe that malls exist even though I have never actually been in one (well, not an American one anyway). But, as you wish. You are entitled to your beliefs and you are a reasonable person. I just wish some of the other believers were the same!

Well, the analogy was indeed a bit stretched.

For a more subtle form, though, consider the difference between an experiment which disproves the existance of a thing, and an experiment which disproves a claim about it.

If I firmly believe that iron is magnetic, and that anything with iron in it will always be attracted to magnets, and you show me steel that isn't magnetic, the solution is not to say "well, I was wrong, there is no iron", but to say "well, I was wrong, iron can be made into non-magnetic alloys".

If I'm wrong about my beliefs about God (and I'm sure I'm wrong about at least some, being not-infallible), that's not reason to reject the notion entirely, but rather, to revise my understanding.

[angela2]

Seebs,

Can my dog come too?

[fatpie42]

Is it?

What if the thing that's there is "other people". And it's not just any other people, but the ones you spent your whole life feeling superior to?


Just spit it out. What are you trying to suggest here?

My gut reaction to your above comments is: "So?"


How about their reaction to, say, the discovery that they no longer have the power to torment the people they hate?

Imagine, if you will, Fred Phelps spending eternity aware that Matthew Shepherd is doing just fine, and is not on fire.

That is hell.


I can't imagine him crying and gnashing his teeth because people around him aren't on fire. Do you really think that sounds likely?


The cure for hell is not to hate people; not to be unhappy unless someone out there is miserable and you're benefitting from it. Most people have someone, or some group, out there that they have to consider themselves better than to be happy.

So what if someone is an absolutely horrible person, and DOESN'T consider themselves better than anyone else? Is pride really the only sin?

[Ubercat]

I know.

But this does leave me wondering why you keep actively engaging people and telling them, despite their protestations to the contrary, what you have decided they believe.

It matters in that you presented an example of an allegedly "inconsistent" position which was based entirely on your misconceptions. Confronted with people who deny the "literal fiery hell", you accuse them of inconsistency if they claim there is salvation from something else. That's just silly.

I tend towards a Great Divorce view of hell. How does it matter? It matters in that, since I don't think people are being "punished" in a retributive sense at all, all of the arguments about disproportionate retribution are non-starters.

I don't particularly expect you to like this, or approve of it, or believe it to be true. What I would like, however, would be for you to stop asserting that the position is inconsistent on the grounds that I've said I don't believe in a literal lake of fire that people are burned in.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to learn everything about every belief system. However, if you don't have the time to find out, stop making declarations based on something you are explicitly avoiding learning anything about. Don't call people "inconsistent" when the blunt fact is that you neither know nor care what they believe. Before you can call someone's position inconsistent, you really do have to know what it is.

Fair enough. Some christians either don't believe in hell, or else they redefine it into something that's non biblical. I call that "making it up as you go along."

I apologise for being too general in my antichristian debating, and not focusing enough on the particular beliefs of people in this thread.

-Ubercat

[Nice Squirrel]

Fair enough. Some christians either don't believe in hell, or else they redefine it into something that's non biblical. I call that "making it up as you go along."

There is a clear Biblical version of Hell?

Please bring it forth and let's examine it.

[Ubercat]

Once again:
Please stop telling us what we believe.

Most of the Christians participating in this thread have explicitly and vociferously disclaimed the "we don't have to care about the environment, Jesus will fix it" view.

Lemme try an analogy.

Imagine that, every time you talk about something related to your belief system, you are attacked on the grounds that atheists have no respect for life. After all, look at Stalin! Look at Mao! When you point out that you, personally, have respect for life, you are told that there are a lot of atheists, no two of them believe the same thing, and it's ridiculous to spend time finding out exactly what any given atheist believes.

You are then told that all that's necessary is that you stop being an atheist, because people are dying out there, and atheists have no respect for life.

Which is, in fact, exactly what you just got done pointing out was an error.

Could you see how this could be annoying, and possibly be a significant barrier to a productive conversation? If so, then stop doing it.

I know you think this Jesus stuff is all crazy, but "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not uniquely Christian, and you might find it a very productive first step towards arguing with the actual things you object to, rather than anything and everything that might be found in the same person as something you object to.

Fair enough. Again, I apologise.

FWIW, on environmentalism:

I go to the very small Wednesday night services at my church. We generally have about 7-10 people.

Of the five or six cars this implies, four are hybrids.

Every light in the building (and every light in my house) is flourescent.

I have been militantly telecommuting since something like 1997.

We buy cheap, sturdy, clothes, and wear them to shreds.

So, uhm. Yeah. I suppose everyone bitching about the Christian track record on the environment drives a vehicle with better than 50mpg, or takes public transportation?

I'm glad to hear all that. Sounds like the Wednesday night service I used to attend when I was 15. That was in the early 80's though, and no one was environmentally conscious. I lived in Philadelphia from '87 up until last April, and was quite careful to use only public transportation or walk while there. (didn't have or need a car) I just bought a car, and was careful to get a small, compact car, despite being 6'4. I can't afford a hybrid unfortunately.

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

You're wrong about this Christian, and lots of others.


I apologise. -Ubercat

[Ubercat]

There is a clear Biblical version of Hell?

Please bring it forth and let's examine it.

I think that the "weeping and gnashing of teeth; worm never dies; everlasting torment; the smoke from the pit; I'm in anguish. Please place a drop of water on my tongue" verses cover it more than adequately. And no. I'm not going to go look them up for you.

It's clearly not the sheltered young mormon accidently walks into the Manhole Bar and Grill on drag night, and finds himself locked in forever and ever, that Seebs seems to be advocating.

-Ubercat

[Nice Squirrel]

I think that the "weeping and gnashing of teeth; worm never dies; everlasting torment; the smoke from the pit; I'm in anguish. Please place a drop of water on my tongue" verses cover it more than adequately. And no. I'm not going to go look them up for you.

Well the worm was part of a parable which refered to a real historical place. The everlasting garbage fire outside Jerusalem was extinguished. Feel free to cite passages describing the True Hell.

[lpetrich]

I understand what you are saying. And I understand that you are incorrect. The Dionysus Trinity is specifically the Father, Son and of all the unlikely things a Holy Ghost. ...
Overactive imagination. If you want to consider Semele some sort of Holy Spook, I can't stop you.

Actually the goddess Venus in her many forms was worshiped across the entire Roman Empire. And we are not talking about the dark ages here but about Imperial Rome which made a habit of stationing it’s legions from the middle east, who worshiped Ishtar, in the west of Europe and vise versa. Communications across the empire were rapid and constant.
Where did they use the name "Ishtar" explicitly? I mean explicitly, and not in some form like Ashtoreth or Astarte.

And yet there is her holyday on the Christian calendar at the same time as on the Hellenistic.
The vernal equinox, as if nobody could possibly invent a holiday on that date more than once.

Nor is it surprising that in several languages, including our own, the original holyday of the resurrection of Adonis has kept it’s original name.
Or else the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Again, Joseph Campbell’s Occidental Mythology the scholarship is already done; you don’t have to keep speculating.
Then he's just plain wrong.

Old English Eostre
Roman Aurora
Greek Eos
Vedic Ushas

Goddesses whose name means "Dawn" -- and from whom one can reconstruct an ancestral Indo-European goddess of the dawn. There aren't many other Indo-European deity names one can reconstruct; they worshipped a deity named Father Sky (Old English Tiu, Old Norse Tyr, Latin Jovis Pater > Jupiter, Greek Zeus Pater, Vedic Dyaus Pitar), and they worshipped a cudgel-wielding god of thunder and war (Old Norse Thor, Celtic Taranis, "The Thunderer", Lithuanian Perkunas, Slavic Perun, "The Striker"(?), Vedic Indra, "The Man").

[JamesBannon]

There is a clear Biblical version of Hell?

Please bring it forth and let's examine it.

As far as I know there is no clear concept of hell in the Old Testament (and no heaven either). Rewards and punishment tend to have a much more earthly feel in the Old Testament. I think there is plenty of support in the New Testament, however, particularly in Revelations.

[Biff the unclean]

Overactive imagination. If you want to consider Semele some sort of Holy Spook, I can't stop you.
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost were a basic concept of the Dionysus religion with a clear concept of who and what each was.

A good four or five hundred years later along come Christianity with the Father (Yahweh) and the Son (Jesus). But where does this Holy Ghost come from? And why a Holy Ghost of all things? The Ghost of who or what?

The vernal equinox, as if nobody could possibly invent a holiday on that date more than once.
By the merest coincidence commemorating the resurrection of a man/god.

Or else the resurrection of Jesus Christ
With the name of a pagan goddess. Oh that’s right, Easter is only nonsense syllables that have no meaning.

Then he's (Joseph Campbell) just plain wrong (about comparative mythology).
Okay then, silly me.

[lpetrich]

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost were a basic concept of the Dionysus religion with a clear concept of who and what each was.
I still don't see how Semele is supposed to be some sort of Holy Spook.

A good four or five hundred years later along come Christianity with the Father (Yahweh) and the Son (Jesus). But where does this Holy Ghost come from? And why a Holy Ghost of all things? The Ghost of who or what?
As I had explained earlier,
Spirit of God > Holy Spirit
In New Testament Greek, it was pneuma hagion
This was translated into Latin as spiritus sanctus
From there it was translated into English as both "Holy Ghost" and then "Holy Spirit".

(Vernal-equinox holiday)
By the merest coincidence commemorating the resurrection of a man/god.
It was originally the celebration of the resurrection of vegetation. In fact, the earlier dying and resurrected gods are typically associated with vegetation.

With the name of a pagan goddess. Oh that’s right, Easter is only nonsense syllables that have no meaning.
The original Xians did NOT speak English; they spoke Greek. And the Greek name for Easter is Paskha, derived from Hebrew Pesach, "Passover". The Xians of the Western Roman Empire spoke Latin -- and called it Pascha. Let's look at what their modern successors call it:

Italian Pasqua
Spanish Pascua
Portuguese Páscoa
French Pâques
Dutch Pasen
Swedish Påsk

It's only the English and German versions that look anything like "Ishtar" (Eostre, Ostern), and those versions that are derived from words for resurrection have a very straightforward source that seems to have escaped Biff the unclean: Jesus Christ's resurrection.

[angela2]

Newsflash! Bill Moyers is devoting one of his programs (on faith and reason?) to conservative Christians and their concern for the environment. A preview shows a young man saying, "I care about the Creator so I care about the creation." The title of the program is, "Is God Green?"

[seebs]

As far as I know there is no clear concept of hell in the Old Testament (and no heaven either). Rewards and punishment tend to have a much more earthly feel in the Old Testament. I think there is plenty of support in the New Testament, however, particularly in Revelations.

Revelations is almost certainly support for something, but I'm always a bit nervous when people claim that they've figured out specifically what. :p It's the Duff's Device of Christianity.

[Biff the unclean]

I still don't see how Semele is supposed to be some sort of Holy Spook.
Semele was killed by Hera’s treachery after she was foolish enough to boast that she carried Zeus’ child.
The litany is that Dionysus descended into the under world, freed Semele’s ghost from Hades. He brought her to Mt Olympus where she was sanctified and made holy (being human that was the best anyone could hope for). She reigned with Dionysus who Zeus had declared as last king of the gods.
In the Dionysian religion the Holy Trinity and the Holy Family were the same thing.

As I had explained earlier,
Spirit of God > Holy Spirit
In New Testament Greek, it was pneuma hagion
This was translated into Latin as spiritus sanctus
From there it was translated into English as both "Holy Ghost" and then "Holy Spirit".
Which makes no sense at all since God the Father is already a spirit and that the Trinity is said to be composed of three persons distinct and separate and not two forms of the Father and a separate son.

The original Xians did NOT speak English; they spoke Greek. And the Greek name for Easter is Paskha, derived from Hebrew Pesach, "Passover". The Xians of the Western Roman Empire spoke Latin -- and called it Pascha. Let's look at what their modern successors call it:
So what? Their celebration is still not original no matter what they call it.

It's only the English and German versions that look anything like "Ishtar" (Eostre, Ostern), and those versions that are derived from words for resurrection have a very straightforward source that seems to have escaped Biff the unclean: Jesus Christ's resurrection.
It escaped 8th century Christian monk and historian Bede too who wrote that this day was dedicated to the pagan fertility goddess Eostre.

A quick Google search of “pagan Easter” will inundate you with articles supporting Bede and me.

[JamesBannon]

Revelations is almost certainly support for something, but I'm always a bit nervous when people claim that they've figured out specifically what. :p It's the Duff's Device of Christianity.

Can't argue with that. Why Revelations made it into the official Canon is beyond me as it just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the NT unless one takes it as a simple message of "Hope" for believers. I think though I could dig up support for a literal "hell" elsewhere in the translation I have (if I could be bothered).

[lpetrich]

Biff the unclean, Bede (the original one, not the IIDB one) does NOT support your Easter = Ishtar contention.

Also, I checked on the question of Hell, and the article Christian Salvation? (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=192) points out a LOT of differences of opinion between different Xian denominations.

I used Strong's Concordance and the Blue-Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org) to find out what words were used for "hell" in the New Testament; in the Old Testament it's all "sheol":

Gehenna (Strong 1067):
Matthew 5:22,29,30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 23:15, 23:33
Mark 9:43,45,47
Luke 12:5
James 3:6

Hades (Strong 86):
Matthew 11:23, 16:18
Luke 10:15, 16:23
Acts 2:27,31
1 Corinthians 15:55
Revelation 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14

Tartarus (Strong 5020):
2 Peter 2:4

Gehenna is described as a fiery place where one would not want to be sent to, a place where the fire keeps burning forever and there are worms that never die (Mark 9:48). This is consistent with the nature of the lake of fire in the Book of Revelation.

Hades is not quite as vivid, though in Luke 16:23, it seems much like Gehenna, fire and all, with not even a drop of water to drink.

Elsewhere, we find that some people will be sent to a place where they will do a lot of "weeping and gnashing of teeth":
Matthew 8:12, 13:42,50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30
Luke 13:28

In Matthew 13, it is a "fiery furnace", like Gehenna, but in the other places in Matthew, it is a very dark place, the exception being Matthew 24:51, where one will be cut into pieces.

In Matthew 25:31-46, we find good people labeled sheep and bad people labeled goats, with the latter being punished by being sent to some place with eternal fire -- just like Gehenna.

So it is reasonable to conclude that the New Testament supports the traditional concept of Hell as a place where one will be burned alive and otherwise tormented forever and ever and ever.

[Biff the unclean]

Biff the unclean, Bede (the original one, not the IIDB one) does NOT support your Easter = Ishtar contention.
.
And yet when you type "pagan easter bede" into Google you get page after page of sources saying that the Venerable Bede did. Go figure:huh:
Or are you saying that the goddess' name must be spelled exactly the same in every country she was worshiped in order to be the same goddess? This is, after all, Venus/Aphrodite we are talking about after all.

[sharon45]

So it is reasonable to conclude that the New Testament supports the traditional concept of Hell as a place where one will be burned alive and otherwise tormented forever and ever and ever.The NT doesn't completely support hell because it is always hopelessly tied with the OT.

[seebs]

Can't argue with that. Why Revelations made it into the official Canon is beyond me as it just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the NT unless one takes it as a simple message of "Hope" for believers. I think though I could dig up support for a literal "hell" elsewhere in the translation I have (if I could be bothered).

I often suspect that they weren't sure what it meant either, and wanted to be on the safe side in case it meant something.

Me, I'm pretty much full-preterist on Revelations; I think it predominantly consists of a discussion of the fall of the temple, written in code and symbology that the ~60-80AD church would have understood.

[seebs]

I think the hell passages you cite actually fit annihilationism a lot better than eternalism.

[JamesBannon]

I often suspect that they weren't sure what it meant either, and wanted to be on the safe side in case it meant something.

Me, I'm pretty much full-preterist on Revelations; I think it predominantly consists of a discussion of the fall of the temple, written in code and symbology that the ~60-80AD church would have understood.

I have a fancy that the beast is Nero (whose number is 666 which derives from Nero is ancient numerology) and that it's a message of reassurance that his persecution won't last that long.

[lpetrich]

I think the hell passages you cite actually fit annihilationism a lot better than eternalism.
seebs, that is absolutely preposterous. :rolleyes:

The don't describe one's consciousness stopping, but continuing on forever in a realm of everlasting torment.

Looking more broadly, this is something that some of us find very annoying about liberal and moderate Xianity, its desperate attempts to maintain a prestense of belief in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility and perfection with specious arguments. It would be MUCH simpler to say "I believe that the Bible is in error there;" why is it so impossibly difficult to do so?

[The Arbiter]

Because they know what would be admitting that their "faith" is invalid.

[WishboneDawn]

seebs, that is absolutely preposterous. :rolleyes:

The don't describe one's consciousness stopping, but continuing on forever in a realm of everlasting torment.

Looking more broadly, this is something that some of us find very annoying about liberal and moderate Xianity, its desperate attempts to maintain a prestense of belief in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility and perfection with specious arguments. It would be MUCH simpler to say "I believe that the Bible is in error there;" why is it so impossibly difficult to do so?

Could you not just ask seebs to clarify instead of making him the poster boy for moderate christians?

[seebs]

seebs, that is absolutely preposterous. :rolleyes:

The don't describe one's consciousness stopping, but continuing on forever in a realm of everlasting torment.

Looking more broadly, this is something that some of us find very annoying about liberal and moderate Xianity, its desperate attempts to maintain a prestense of belief in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility and perfection with specious arguments. It would be MUCH simpler to say "I believe that the Bible is in error there;" why is it so impossibly difficult to do so?

Except I'm not arguing for inerrancy or perfection.

But when someone points to a burning trash heap (you know, Gehenna was an actual place, at the time) and compares hell to it... Is the fire always there? Yes. Does each individual item of trash burn forever? No.

The annihilationist view of a permanent "fire" (metaphorical, presumably, as we are not talking about burning physical matter) which permanently destroys things fits these passages quite well.

"Fear the one who can destroy both body and soul" does not, to me, suggest "the one who will keep the body and soul alive forever but in pain". Destruction has permanent effects, but is not a permanent process.

I think we're seeing here the core of a lot of the frustration. If you have a broad selection of apparently contradictory passages, it's very easy to get used to a particular view, and get used to hearing all of these passages only the way you're used to; then, if anyone talks about a conflicting view, it sounds very much like they're rejecting something that's clear and obvious.

What I have found, from watching long debates between annihilationists and eternalists, or eternalists and universalists, is that all the people who think that only their view is consistent with the text, and that it's clear, are just plain wrong. Each of these views presents a consistent whole which does pretty well with most of the passages, although a few make it a little hard.

But imagine for the sake of argument that we're just looking at ten verses. These ten verses can all be interpreted in a way consistent with eternalism. Fully aware of that, and used to that reading, we see someone explain how a single one of those verses is understood in terms of annihilationism. Well, it sounds ridiculous, because we still have the eternalist model of the other nine in mind, so annihilationism sounds silly.

The thing is, it's just as true the other way. If you're used to, and expecting, and taking the assumptions of, the annihilationist reading, the eternalist readings of most of these verses sound stilted and ludicrous.

Getting past that, to get the whole picture of each of these schools of thought, requires a substantial effort to put down one set of preconceptions to examine another.

Trying to explain annihilationism to someone who's very used to eternalism is very frustrating; it's like trying to explain heliocentrism to someone who keeps pointing out that, if the planets went around the sun, like that, then the planets would wiggle all over the place constantly when they went through their epicycles.

I personally don't know that any of the three major schools are entirely correct. I think it's pretty wacky to look at all the parables and analogies Jesus used, then turn around and assert that a particular analogy or metaphor must be both literal and exact, which seems to be the first step in nearly everyone's attempts to answer the hell question.

But I do know that every one of them affords a consistent reading when you read the entire selection of passages according to it. In some cases, this means bringing in verses that an eternalist might not see as relevant to the afterlife question, but an annihilationist would. In other cases, it involves arguing that a given passage describes something else. You end up with debates about limbo and purgatory and who knows what else.

But I don't buy the simple "this is it, it's obvious, the text is clear" answer from anyone, whether it's an eternalist, an annihilationist, or a universalist. I have managed to get each of those views to "gel" for me, so I can read the passages that way and grant that the view is consistent, but I don't think I find any of them so clearly better as to resolve the question.

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm also one that sees Revelations as more belonging to the past as it describes real places and contemporary events. It is the only book Greek Orthodox Church does not read from during liturgy.

There was great debate whether to include the book in the New Testament and it barely made it in. I love how the interpretations change as history marches forward. Does anyone remeber the Late Great Planet Earth with interpretations of Revelations describing the upcoming war between the US and USSR? The somehow it shifted to Iraq. I'm sure if the Andean flute players became pied, Peru would be one of the main players in the Revelations.

[angela2]

I'm also one that sees Revelations as more belonging to the past as it describes real places and contemporary events. It is the only book Greek Orthodox Church does not read from during liturgy.

There was great debate whether to include the book in the New Testament and it barely made it in. I love how the interpretations change as history marches forward. Does anyone remeber the Late Great Planet Earth with interpretations of Revelations describing the upcoming war between the US and USSR? The somehow it shifted to Iraq. I'm sure if the Andean flute players became pied, Peru would be one of the main players in the Revelations.
I also see Revelation as being written in a code know only to the church that was being persecuted at that time. I'm very hesitant about efforts to decipher the code. But there are parts of this book I would not want to have been lost.

21:1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them;
4 he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away."

[lpetrich]

Except I'm not arguing for inerrancy or perfection.
But what flaws in the Bible are you willing to acknowledge the presence of? Any at all?

But when someone points to a burning trash heap (you know, Gehenna was an actual place, at the time) and compares hell to it... Is the fire always there? Yes. Does each individual item of trash burn forever? No.
Totally beside the point. This is supposed to be a fire that never gets extinguished with worms that never die, as if one will be tormented forever and ever and ever by them. It doesn't say that people sent to Hell will meet their ends there.

What is so impossibly difficult about stating annihilationism directly?

[Nice Squirrel]

But what flaws in the Bible are you willing to acknowledge the presence of? Any at all?


Totally beside the point. This is supposed to be a fire that never gets extinguished with worms that never die, as if one will be tormented forever and ever and ever by them. It doesn't say that people sent to Hell will meet their ends there.

What is so impossibly difficult about stating annihilationism directly?

I see, so the parable must be read literal and not spiritually?

[lpetrich]

I see, so the parable must be read literal and not spiritually?
How is one supposed to tell? Where do the literal parts end and the allegorical or figurative or symbolic or spiritual or whatever parts begin? And how does one work out what is the correct allegorical / figurative / symbolic / spiritual / whatever interpretation? And keep it from becoming "if I like it, it's literal, and if I don't like it, it's allegorical"?

Those are serious problems with allegoricalism that literalism lacks.

Like for all we know, the four Gospels could be four extended allegories.

How would we be able to tell whether that is or is not the case?

[seebs]

But what flaws in the Bible are you willing to acknowledge the presence of? Any at all?

Before something can be said to be "flawed" or "perfect" we have to decide what it's trying to be.

My screwdriver is a crappy hammer. That doesn't mean it's a bad screwdriver.

As a source of factual information about Hebrew history, the Bible is a piece of crap. As an example of the way in which "historians" around that period often chose to write history so as to make moral points or cheerlead for their own side, it is an exemplar.

Totally beside the point. This is supposed to be a fire that never gets extinguished with worms that never die, as if one will be tormented forever and ever and ever by them. It doesn't say that people sent to Hell will meet their ends there.

Some passages don't, others seem to make it quite clear.

"Destroy both body and soul" is pretty solid.

What is so impossibly difficult about stating annihilationism directly?

I don't think it's difficult at all:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 10, Verse 28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Poof! Annihilationism.

The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 3, Verse 15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Poof! Purgatory.

The Second Epistle General of Peter, Chapter 3, Verse 9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Poof! Universalism.

The question is not just why a specific one of these isn't clearly and unambiguously stated all the time, but why none are.

My guess is that all our models are inherently incorrect, because we are asking the wrong sorts of questions. I am mostly persuaded, for instance, that we are getting off on the wrong foot when we try to argue in terms of an eternity which is "lots and lots of time" instead of an eternity which does not have time as an attribute at all.

But here's the thing: Jesus spoke, fairly frequently, in analogies, parables, and metaphors. I don't think that a flat literal answer to this question would fit in with that, and frankly, if one were suddenly dropped in the middle of the text, I would be pretty confident that it had been added later during one of the internal disputes in the church.

I tend to take the whole thing as guidance that I really don't need to have an ironclad dogma on the question, and really, what purpose would such a dogma serve? It's not as though my course of action suddenly changes.

[seebs]

How is one supposed to tell? Where do the literal parts end and the allegorical or figurative or symbolic or spiritual or whatever parts begin? And how does one work out what is the correct allegorical / figurative / symbolic / spiritual / whatever interpretation? And keep it from becoming "if I like it, it's literal, and if I don't like it, it's allegorical"?

Those are serious problems with allegoricalism that literalism lacks.

Like for all we know, the four Gospels could be four extended allegories.

How would we be able to tell whether that is or is not the case?

I think this is a little unreasonable. We have tons of things which are identified by the speaking characters in the Gospels as being analogies or metaphors. The disciples are described as specifically asking Jesus to explain the metaphors, which Jesus does.

Asking why we don't just treat the whole thing as analogy is like asking why we don't treat all the "about this story" pages in a collection of short stories as fiction, given that they say the stories are fiction.

We have an account which is very clearly written in the style of a factual account, about a man who tells a lot of people metaphorical stories. The argument that a particular thing this man said might also be a metaphorical story is a pretty easy one, and doesn't require some elaborate justification.

[angela2]

How is one supposed to tell? Where do the literal parts end and the allegorical or figurative or symbolic or spiritual or whatever parts begin? And how does one work out what is the correct allegorical / figurative / symbolic / spiritual / whatever interpretation?
I think what you see as a problem is in actuality a virtue. I'm sure you'll think that's totally insane. But IMO the fact that much of scripture cannot be nailed down to one interpretation gives it the lattitude to be meaningful to all people at all times.

And you do exaggerate the situation. Some things are clearly meant to be historical (even if they are historically incorrect). Some passages are clearly called parables. The wording in some passages suggest a parable, say, the binding of the strong man. Some passages can be definitively identified as poetic because of the structure of the verses. Others are identified as common sayings or common wisdom, "You have heard it said..." Other things only make sense with a literal reading. When NT says Jesus read Isaiah, we know that's true because we have that passage in Isaiah. Similarly other quotations from OT.

[Ubercat]

I see, so the parable must be read literal and not spiritually?

Please define "spiritually." How does it differ from "It means whatever I want it to mean?"

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

I think what you see as a problem is in actuality a virtue. I'm sure you'll think that's totally insane. But IMO the fact that much of scripture cannot be nailed down to one interpretation gives it the lattitude to be meaningful to all people at all times.

IMO it IS insane. MILLIONS of people have been murdered over the centuries due to differing interpretations of the bible. Do you think that was worth it, so that you guys could have a happyhappy, joyjoy bible appreciation club today? Would a SANE, REAL creator think it was worth it?

-Ubercat

[AthenaAwakened]

I think what you see as a problem is in actuality a virtue. I'm sure you'll think that's totally insane. But IMO the fact that much of scripture cannot be nailed down to one interpretation gives it the latitude to be meaningful to all people at all times.

The Bible as Rorschach Test. So the interpretation of the bible would tell you more about the person than the book and the morals of the person would influence the meaning of the book. Kinda makes the book something less akin to a lens throughwhich to see the world and more like of a looking glass.

[Nice Squirrel]

Please define "spiritually." How does it differ from "It means whatever I want it to mean?"

-Ubercat

I don't understand your point. Are you stating that all non-literal interpretations are just fanciful?

For example if Jesus said: "Those that drink too much wine will be run over by a donkey cart stampede in the morning" could never refer to a hangover, but must be taken to mean that donkey carts will literally run over them the next day or the parable becomes meaningless? Because trust me, I know what hangovers feel like and yes, I would say this analogy is apt.

How could a loving God punnish drinkers by killing them with donkey carts? :huh:

[Biff the unclean]

When the bible says that Jesus was crucified for your sins and resurrected a few days later, is that literal, parable or metaphoric, and by what standard do you determine it’s status?

[angela2]

The Bible as Rorschach Test. So the interpretation of the bible would tell you more about the person than the book and the morals of the person would influence the meaning of the book. Kinda makes the book something less akin to a lens throughwhich to see the world and more like of a looking glass.
1) scripture was meant to be read in a faith community thus making interpretation a communal judgment
2) much of scripture is not open to interpretation

[angela2]

IMO it IS insane. MILLIONS of people have been murdered over the centuries due to differing interpretations of the bible.
And of course God recommends murdering those who disagree with you. How silly.

[Nice Squirrel]

When the bible says that Jesus was crucified for your sins and resurrected a few days later, is that literal, parable or metaphoric, and by what standard do you determine it’s status?

I believe it is literal, parable and metaphoric.

Literal... no explanation needed.
Parable... Jesus dies, goes to hell and emerges a new being. (See Dante.)
Metaphorical... If we are to truely grow and be reborn (in this life) we must first go through an ending crisis, spend time in a "netural zone" and then face a new beginging. See this non-religious book for futher insight into life transitions:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0201000822/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-4273403-1600959#reader-link

[steamer]

Squirrel,

Is there a thread where you outline what you do believe? You seem careful never to specify which dogma you prefer. Which versus you take to be literal, parable and metaphoric and how you arrive at your conclusions. Do you imagine that your beliefs of which is which is guided by some divine influence? Do you deny talking snakes as pretend but talking donkeys and living-dead men as literal?

[RPS]

How is one supposed to tell? Where do the literal parts end and the allegorical or figurative or symbolic or spiritual or whatever parts begin? And how does one work out what is the correct allegorical / figurative / symbolic / spiritual / whatever interpretation? And keep it from becoming "if I like it, it's literal, and if I don't like it, it's allegorical"?

Those are serious problems with allegoricalism that literalism lacks.So when Jesus says "I am the Door" we'd best assume He was made of wood and had hinges?

[AthenaAwakened]

1) scripture was meant to be read in a faith community thus making interpretation a communal judgment


So an individual is incapable of reading scripture and understanding it, meaning is determined by committee?


2) much of scripture is not open to interpretation

Which parts and how do you tell?

[Biff the unclean]

And of course God recommends murdering those who disagree with you. How silly.
My grandfather, my mothers father (in Ireland), was killed for being the wrong type of Christian. His murders knew it was God's will because they read it in scripture with their faith community thus making that interpretation a communal judgment.

Silly? Mmmmm, I'd say, insane. But then that's just me.

[Nice Squirrel]

Squirrel,

Is there a thread where you outline what you do believe?
Nope, there is one where I attempt to explain it, but it goes all over the place.

You seem careful never to specify which dogma you prefer.I must pick a dogma?

Which versus you take to be literal, parable and metaphoric and how you arrive at your conclusions.They are either-ors or do you want to see a magic decoder ring?

Do you imagine that your beliefs of which is which is guided by some divine influence?If by divine, you mean shiny objects, and by guided you mean what my Ouiji board told me to feed my children, then no.

Do you deny talking snakes as pretend but talking donkeys and living-dead men as literal?
Huh? Francis spoke as well as Mr. Ed. One was mule and one was a horse, of course.

[angela2]

So an individual is incapable of reading scripture and understanding it, meaning is determined by committee?
A church is not a committee. Let's just say this is the recommended method. From some really wacky interpretations I've seen by unchurched Christians on other sites, I'd say individuals are much more likely to miss the mark with interpretation.
Which parts and how do you tell?
Some things are clearly meant to be historical (even if they are historically incorrect). Some passages are clearly called parables. The wording in some passages suggest a parable, say, the binding of the strong man. Some passages can be definitively identified as poetic because of the structure of the verses. Others are identified as common sayings or common wisdom, "You have heard it said..." Other things only make sense with a literal reading. When NT says Jesus read Isaiah, we know that's true because we have that passage in Isaiah. Similarly other quotations from OT.

Let me put it another way. A book entitled Proverbs should probably be understood to contain proverbs.

[steamer]

They are either-ors or do you want to see a magic decoder ring?

I'd like to see your magic decoder ring please.


If by divine, you mean shiny objects, and by guided you mean what my Ouiji board told me to feed my children, then no.

Ok, I'll believe you if you say your choices are not influenced by anything other than your whim.


Huh? Francis spoke as well as Mr. Ed. One was mule and one was a horse, of course.

Were they in the bible too? Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead and walked about? Or is this just metaphor, what does your decoder ring say?

[steamer]

When NT says Jesus read Isaiah, we know that's true because we have that passage in Isaiah. Similarly other quotations from OT.


Is it just me or does anyone else suspect they knew about Isaiah by the time the new tastymint was written? How does this prove anything other than that they could read and write?

[angela2]

Is it just me or does anyone else suspect they knew about Isaiah by the time the new tastymint was written? How does this prove anything other than that they could read and write?
What it is meant to demonstrate is that there are passages of scripture that are meant to be taken literally.

[Biff the unclean]

What it is meant to demonstrate is that there are passages of scripture that are meant to be taken literally.
Jesus takes Noahs Flood to be literal in Matthew 24:37 and Luke 17:26. And in case you missed it, again in 2 Peter 2:5
Are we meant to take Noah and his flood literally by the criteria you are using?

[Ubercat]

And of course God recommends murdering those who disagree with you. How silly.

It worked with the Israelites. The neighbors didn't even HAVE to disagree for biblegod to send his butchers, but that's beside the point. MILLIONS of people have died because the bible is so obtuse. I ask again. Was it worth it, so that liberal christians could make it say whatever feels warmest and fuzziest to them?

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Nope, there is one where I attempt to explain it, but it goes all over the place.
I must pick a dogma?
They are either-ors or do you want to see a magic decoder ring?
If by divine, you mean shiny objects, and by guided you mean what my Ouiji board told me to feed my children, then no.
Huh? Francis spoke as well as Mr. Ed. One was mule and one was a horse, of course.

Hahaha. That was all funny. I find it interesting that you won't specify your beliefs, after all the insistence in this thread that non believers just ASK, before making assumptions. I suppose it saves you from having to defend them logically and rationally.

How about it guys? Anyone else want to describe their personal jesus, holy spirit, or pseudochristian whatever?

-Ubercat

[ELECTROGOD]

They sure are dancing today. Lots of different shades of apologetics with this group.

[Biff the unclean]

I find it interesting that you won't specify your beliefs, after all the insistence in this thread that non believers just ASK, before making assumptions. I suppose it saves you from having to defend them logically and rationally.
From what I’ve seen here at IIDB this is THE most important tenet of Christianity. Nobody can possibly know what a believer believes. A believer can have written literally thousands of blurbs stating what they believe and still take any reader to task for implying they have some slight idea of their faith.

[lpetrich]

Before something can be said to be "flawed" or "perfect" we have to decide what it's trying to be. (... the Bible ...)
This seems to me like claiming "I didn't lose because I was never in the race."

(Matthew 10:28)Poof! Annihilationism.
(1 Corinthians 3:15)Poof! Purgatory.
(2 Peter 3:9)Poof! Universalism.

And that bit about a never-extinguished fire and a never-dying worm suggested eternalism.

Meaning that the New Testament is rather incoherent about Hell.

But here's the thing: Jesus spoke, fairly frequently, in analogies, parables, and metaphors. ...
Which can make his teachings obscure.

Asking why we don't just treat the whole thing as analogy is like asking why we don't treat all the "about this story" pages in a collection of short stories as fiction, given that they say the stories are fiction.
That's beside the point.

We have an account which is very clearly written in the style of a factual account, about a man who tells a lot of people metaphorical stories. The argument that a particular thing this man said might also be a metaphorical story is a pretty easy one, and doesn't require some elaborate justification.
I will concede that on the surface a histircal Jesus Christ does not look fundamentally impossible, but when one looks further, one discovers lots of problems. The Synoptics vs. John. Matthew and Luke having word-for-word copies of much of Mark in them. "Q". Jesus Christ fitting Lord Raglan's Mythic Hero profile very well. Implausibilities like releasing Barabbas and a lynch mob holding itself to blame.

(What's literal and what's allegorical?)
I think what you see as a problem is in actuality a virtue. I'm sure you'll think that's totally insane. But IMO the fact that much of scripture cannot be nailed down to one interpretation gives it the lattitude to be meaningful to all people at all times.
Is that supposed to mean that the Bible is the greatest documentary and the greatest instruction book ever written? Because that's what the Bible is often advertised as.

And any literary work can be made to seem "meaningful" with enough imaginative interpretation.

So when Jesus says "I am the Door" we'd best assume He was made of wood and had hinges?
I will concede that that's rather obviously metaphorical. But that does not settle the question of less obvious cases.

A church is not a committee. Let's just say this is the recommended method. From some really wacky interpretations I've seen by unchurched Christians on other sites, I'd say individuals are much more likely to miss the mark with interpretation.
But what's the difference between a church and a committee?

[seebs]

This seems to me like claiming "I didn't lose because I was never in the race."

To some extent, it is. I freely admit that the Bible is totally useless at explaining how to build a Bessemer furnace, or identifying metals with atomic weights greater than 150.

To call it "perfect" or "flawed", we really have to say "perfect or flawed as what?"

Here at IIDB, I suspect there are many people who would admit that a good study bible makes an excellent doorstop.

Meaning that the New Testament is rather incoherent about Hell.

I would at least say that, if it's all intended to be taken flatly literally and at face value, it's incoherent.

What bugs me is that people attacking the hell thing usually pick whichever of annihilationism or eternalism they find more objectionable, take those passages completely literally and at face value, and just overlook the others.

Which can make his teachings obscure.

Yes.

Which means that, given a specific teaching, assuming that the non-obscure meaning is obviously the intent is a little odd.

That's beside the point.

I don't think it is at all.

You ask, given that I interpret a thing Jesus said as metaphorical, why I don't interpret the claim that Jesus said it as metaphorical. Well, partially because there's a fairly clear distinction between the parables and speechifying and the statements about the circumstances under which the parables were delivered.

I will concede that on the surface a histircal Jesus Christ does not look fundamentally impossible, but when one looks further, one discovers lots of problems. The Synoptics vs. John. Matthew and Luke having word-for-word copies of much of Mark in them. "Q". Jesus Christ fitting Lord Raglan's Mythic Hero profile very well. Implausibilities like releasing Barabbas and a lynch mob holding itself to blame.

The hero thing strikes me as an incoherent argument; are you suggesting that the Church obtained a very early pre-release copy of his book (published in 1936) and used it as a guide to building their story?

I think all of these are perhaps evidence that the stories are not perfectly preserved, or that they picked up some common material; however, that doesn't make them allegory or myth or metaphor, it just makes them historical accounts about which we might reasonably reserve some doubts.

Hmm. It might be that, in the absence of people making ludicrous claims (such as the complete absence of any possible errors, or of any basis for claims of copying or source texts in the Synoptics), this would be less of a problem. The Bible seems to be being held to a standard that is totally unlike the standards we would use while evaluating any other book, and I don't know why. It could just be a hostile reading, but I think it's influenced by the tendency of many apologists to make ludicrous overclaims.

Is that supposed to mean that the Bible is the greatest documentary and the greatest instruction book ever written? Because that's what the Bible is often advertised as.

I don't think I'd call it either, in general. I think that, approached in a reasonably coherent way, it's a very good start on some moral questions and gives a good framework for evaluating them. I would be obliged to grant that I think most people approach it in ways that are utterly nonproductive.

I will concede that that's rather obviously metaphorical. But that does not settle the question of less obvious cases.

True.

But the key point, I think, is that there's no basis for simply grabbing a random passage and insisting that something Jesus said in this passage must be interpreted absolutely literally.

[Nice Squirrel]

Hahaha. That was all funny. I find it interesting that you won't specify your beliefs, after all the insistence in this thread that non believers just ASK, before making assumptions. I suppose it saves you from having to defend them logically and rationally.
And yet you still assume?

How about it guys? Anyone else want to describe their personal jesus, holy spirit, or pseudochristian whatever?Psuedochristian whatever?

[seebs]

You know, what's funny is, four hundred posts into a thread that has ended up mostly being about how not all "liberal Christians" believe the same thing, we still get people going "wow, these people don't agree".

That's sorta the point, isn't it!

[Nice Squirrel]

Jesus takes Noahs Flood to be literal in Matthew 24:37 and Luke 17:26. And in case you missed it, again in 2 Peter 2:5
Are we meant to take Noah and his flood literally by the criteria you are using?

Remember that the Bible is a second hand source and the authors of that time were not disturbed by paraphrasing what they heard or what they believed a person might say.

The flood is a fragment of the Gilgamish epic.

[angela2]

It worked with the Israelites. The neighbors didn't even HAVE to disagree for biblegod to send his butchers, but that's beside the point. MILLIONS of people have died because the bible is so obtuse. I ask again. Was it worth it, so that liberal christians could make it say whatever feels warmest and fuzziest to them?
Are you really claiming cause and effect between the bible's "obtuseness," to use your word, and the death of people?

[Nice Squirrel]

From what I’ve seen here at IIDB this is THE most important tenet of Christianity. Nobody can possibly know what a believer believes. A believer can have written literally thousands of blurbs stating what they believe and still take any reader to task for implying they have some slight idea of their faith.

Are you saying that faith should be fixed and unchanging and that deeper meaning cannot be found?
Or that your meaning and purpose in life in should be an abridged cartoon version you could grasp in a half an hour rather than a process that healthy humans progress through and discover on their own?

[Nice Squirrel]

To some extent, it is. I freely admit that the Bible is totally useless at explaining how to build a Bessemer furnace, .

Well there goes my weekend.:frown:

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
Hahaha. That was all funny. I find it interesting that you won't specify your beliefs, after all the insistence in this thread that non believers just ASK, before making assumptions. I suppose it saves you from having to defend them logically and rationally.

And yet you still assume?

If you tell us what you believe, then we won't have to assume ANYTHING. If it won't stand up to scrutiny though, then by all means keep dancing.

Psuedochristian whatever?

Well, so far you guys have objected strenuously to any attempt to judge your religion by the bible. Since the ONLY source of information about christianity IS the bible, I'd call that psuedochristian.

I predict that you'll next claim that there's more to christianity than the bible. As I already pointed out to Angela, and she strangely declined to address, emotional endorphin rushes, wishful thinking, lucky coincidences and happy dreams don't count as revelation. We ALL get them.

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Remember that the Bible is a second hand source and the authors of that time were not disturbed by paraphrasing what they heard or what they believed a person might say.

The flood is a fragment of the Gilgamish epic.

You seem to be admitting that the bible is an unreliable mishmash of old stories, and myth fragments. Why, then, do you find it necessary to pull a REAL god out of it? If you're just making up your own god, then why do you feel the need to pin the christian label on it?

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
It worked with the Israelites. The neighbors didn't even HAVE to disagree for biblegod to send his butchers, but that's beside the point. MILLIONS of people have died because the bible is so obtuse. I ask again. Was it worth it, so that liberal christians could make it say whatever feels warmest and fuzziest to them?

Are you really claiming cause and effect between the bible's "obtuseness," to use your word, and the death of people?

Does biblegod stand outside time, to know yesterday, today and tommorrow equally well? If your god can't predict the future, then you have a valid point. But I daresay, he'd KNOW that making the book confusing would cause assorted genocides throughout history. He knows what people are like. After all, HE made us this way.

For the third time, did he (or you) really think it was worth all the death, just so people like you could read it and go "Awwwww....":angel:

-Ubercat

[angela2]

Originally Posted by seebs
Before something can be said to be "flawed" or "perfect" we have to decide what it's trying to be. (... the Bible ...)
Originally Posted by lpetrich
This seems to me like claiming "I didn't lose because I was never in the race."
Interesting that you use a competitive metaphor. Can't we all be winners here?
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Meaning that the New Testament is rather incoherent about Hell.
Meaning that concerted, well-informed effort is required for sound scriptural interpretation. Because, as we can see, taking only one or two passages could lead us to a simplistic interpretation.

But here's the thing: Jesus spoke, fairly frequently, in analogies, parables, and metaphors. ...
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Which can make his teachings obscure.
If by 'obscure' you mean that scripture is not 30 second sound bites, I agree. In a society which reads less and less, and when it does read reads that which is less and less complex, in a society that is comfortable with granting authority to internet blurbs and commericially funded TV bits, the study of scripture seems too difficult and seems to require too much effort.

Originally Posted by angela2
I think what you see as a problem is in actuality a virtue. I'm sure you'll think that's totally insane. But IMO the fact that much of scripture cannot be nailed down to one interpretation gives it the lattitude to be meaningful to all people at all times.
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Is that supposed to mean that the Bible is the greatest documentary and the greatest instruction book ever written? Because that's what the Bible is often advertised as.
Definitely not.
And any literary work can be made to seem "meaningful" with enough imaginative interpretation.
That depends on what you mean by 'imaginative interpretation.' Are you claiming that one literary/ sacred work is just as meaningful as any other?

Originally Posted by RPS
So when Jesus says "I am the Door" we'd best assume He was made of wood and had hinges?
I will concede that that's rather obviously metaphorical. But that does not settle the question of less obvious cases.
You're right. It doesn't. But we've already look at one less obvious example, hell. If you have another, I'd be willing to give it a try.

Originally Posted by angela2
A church is not a committee. Let's just say this is the recommended method. From some really wacky interpretations I've seen by unchurched Christians on other sites, I'd say individuals are much more likely to miss the mark with interpretation.
Originally Posted by lpetrich
But what's the difference between a church and a committee?
If you don't know, ah ain't a gunna tell ya. :)

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff the unclean
From what I’ve seen here at IIDB this is THE most important tenet of Christianity. Nobody can possibly know what a believer believes. A believer can have written literally thousands of blurbs stating what they believe and still take any reader to task for implying they have some slight idea of their faith.

Are you saying that faith should be fixed and unchanging and that deeper meaning cannot be found?
Or that your meaning and purpose in life in should be an abridged cartoon version you could grasp in a half an hour rather than a process that healthy humans progress through and discover on their own?

I seriously doubt that's what he means, since what he said comes NO WHERE near that.

I think he just wants you to commit to something, ANYTHING, regarding your faith.

Were Adam and Eve real people? If not, where did sin come from?
Did jesus die to save you from your sins, or didn't he?
What is sin?
What would happen to you if you're not saved?
Did jesus rise from the dead? After how long?
Does biblegod decide ahead of time, who to save and who not to, or is it free will?
Did biblegod REALLY have the Israelites carry out all that murder? If so, when and why did he decide to turn "nice"?
Did the flood occur? How about the tower of babble?

The list is ENDLESS. Take your pick.

-Ubercat

[angela2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
Does biblegod stand outside time, to know yesterday, today and tommorrow equally well? If your god can't predict the future, then you have a valid point. But I daresay, he'd KNOW that making the book confusing would cause assorted genocides throughout history. He knows what people are like. After all, HE made us this way.

For the third time, did he (or you) really think it was worth all the death, just so people like you could read it and go "Awwwww....":angel:
Just so I have it straight, you are claiming cause and effect?

First of all, the bible isn't confusing. It's just a lot more difficult to read than a comic book.

Secondly, it's ridiculous to claim that a book caused people to commit murder.

Please stop asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions.

[angela2]

I predict that you'll next claim that there's more to christianity than the bible. As I already pointed out to Angela, and she strangely declined to address, emotional endorphin rushes, wishful thinking, lucky coincidences and happy dreams don't count as revelation. We ALL get them.
Are you having trouble with terminology? Christians do consider the bible to be revelation.

And of course there is more to Christianity than the bible. The bible is important only as it is a witness to the Trinitarian God.

If you don't know the difference between the things you mentioned and religious experiences that's a problem because obviously religious experiences are subjective experiences and can't be adequately conveyed to others iin words. What I would advise is that you pray for a religious experience if you really want to know the difference.

[Nice Squirrel]

If you tell us what you believe, then we won't have to assume ANYTHING. If it won't stand up to scrutiny though, then by all means keep dancing.
I have and it was rejected as not being a belief. Shall we stert down that road again?

Well, so far you guys have objected strenuously to any attempt to judge your religion by the bible. Since the ONLY source of information about christianity IS the bible, I'd call that psuedochristian.I'll remember to tell that to historians, biographers, saints, monks, mystics, philosophers, psychologists, clergy, etc... that continue to make Christianity a living religion. Luckily Christianity is more than the Bible, but it seems that you cannot accept that and cling to the paradigm that the Bible is the sum total of Christianity.
I predict that you'll next claim that there's more to christianity than the bible. As I already pointed out to Angela, and she strangely declined to address, emotional endorphin rushes, wishful thinking, lucky coincidences and happy dreams don't count as revelation. We ALL get them.That's right, you must interpret for yourself. I can look at a squirrel and only a squirrel separated from the entire universe as an atomic being with a finite begining and end or I can look at it as an eternal being having existed before the big bang and after the big crunch. Both versions are physically correct depending on your point of view.

[Nice Squirrel]

You seem to be admitting that the bible is an unreliable mishmash of old stories, and myth fragments. Why, then, do you find it necessary to pull a REAL god out of it? If you're just making up your own god, then why do you feel the need to pin the christian label on it?
The mere framing of this leading question is silly. You keep telling me that I am not a True Christian because I do not believe the way YOU want me to.

[seebs]

The notion that there could be anything unusual, or negative, about claiming that there is more to Christianity than the Bible, strikes me as displaying a kind of militant ignorance of two thousand years of church history.

Note that that's about three hundred years more history than the Bible has.

[seebs]

The mere framing of this leading question is silly. You keep telling me that I am not a True Christian because I do not believe the way YOU want me to.

It reminds me of a scene in Freejack where a character checks a gun, finds a single bullet in it, and quips "Think I can get them all to stand in a line?"

[Nice Squirrel]

Were Adam and Eve real people? If not, where did sin come from?
I don't see these are related.

Did jesus die to save you from your sins, or didn't he?
Save or forgive? Compassion and understanding is what he brings.

What is sin?
Good question. Got a couple of days to discuss this in MF&P?

What would happen to you if you're not saved?
I don't know nor care.

Did jesus rise from the dead?
In accordance with the scriptures.
After how long?
Doesn't matter.

Does biblegod decide ahead of time, who to save and who not to, or is it free will?
I don't know, nor care.

Did biblegod REALLY have the Israelites carry out all that murder? If so, when and why did he decide to turn "nice"?
Tribal religion vs. Universal religion. You are arguing for literalism here.

Did the flood occur?
There was probably a big flood that spawned the story in the epic of Gilgamish, but did not cover the Earth although Mean Squirrel did freeze it over before humans arrived.

How about the tower of babble?That is a metaphorical story about spiritual experiences and how as you experience God words fail to describe the experience.

[geddit?]

Liberal Christians refusing to have their beliefs nailed down?

Seems to me that question contains a redundancy.

By nature, a progressive religious thinker would modify their belief to account for problems or errors.

So, as a bent on the topic and where the thread seems to have led to....

Do atheists, through questioning, enable liberal religionists?


geddit?

[angela2]

Liberal Christians refusing to have their beliefs nailed down?

Seems to me that question contains a redundancy.
I think it was the interpretation of any and all scripture I said wasn't nailed down.

Do atheists, through questioning, enable liberal religionists?
That would be nice although, speaking for myself, I don't feel the need of enabling by atheists.

[Ubercat]

Just so I have it straight, you are claiming cause and effect?

First of all, the bible isn't confusing. It's just a lot more difficult to read than a comic book.

Secondly, it's ridiculous to claim that a book caused people to commit murder.

Please stop asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions.

Are YOU claiming that MILLIONS of people have NOT been murdered in the last 2000 years because of different interpretations of the bible? People are stupid. They'll murder for any stupid reason at all. Was it just or good of biblegod to give us a book which would lead to millions more murders?

-Ubercat

[geddit?]

I think it was the interpretation of any and all scripture I said wasn't nailed down.

If some parts of scripture were proven a "crock", would it really matter to you in the long run?

Would it make it necessary to abandon your faith?

I doubt it.


That would be nice although, speaking for myself, I don't feel the need of enabling by atheists.

I don't think you need enabling either.
But, if a person is willing to have their beliefs examined and then reexamine their beliefs themselves - I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Sounds good to me actually - Just my opinion.


geddit?

[Ubercat]

Are you having trouble with terminology? Christians do consider the bible to be revelation.

And of course there is more to Christianity than the bible. The bible is important only as it is a witness to the Trinitarian God.

So what is the "more" to christianity? What distinguishes it from the personal revelations, and biblical interpretations throughout history which have led to church schisms, pogroms, crusades, and various genocides? Was biblegod not thinking when he left his book open to your interpretation?

If you don't know the difference between the things you mentioned and religious experiences that's a problem because obviously religious experiences are subjective experiences and can't be adequately conveyed to others iin words. What I would advise is that you pray for a religious experience if you really want to know the difference.

:rolling: Been there, done that. Don't want to go back. Thank you. I've wasted enough of my life begging the ceiling for guidance, mercy etc. etc.

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Well, so far you guys have objected strenuously to any attempt to judge your religion by the bible. Since the ONLY source of information about christianity IS the bible, I'd call that psuedochristian.

II'll remember to tell that to historians, biographers, saints, monks, mystics, philosophers, psychologists, clergy, etc... that continue to make Christianity a living religion. Luckily Christianity is more than the Bible, but it seems that you cannot accept that and cling to the paradigm that the Bible is the sum total of Christianity.

So christianity is the sum total of the bible, and whatever people who call themselves christians make up as they go along.

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
You seem to be admitting that the bible is an unreliable mishmash of old stories, and myth fragments. Why, then, do you find it necessary to pull a REAL god out of it? If you're just making up your own god, then why do you feel the need to pin the christian label on it?

The mere framing of this leading question is silly. You keep telling me that I am not a True Christian because I do not believe the way YOU want me to.

Is the bible inerrant, or isn't it? How can you admit that such and such parts are mythical, but claim that others aren't? What you guys do is equivalent to reading ancient Greek myth, and concluding that Hermes is real, but the other gods were just make believe. Am I out of place to ask WHY? If 60% of the bible is just stories (pulled that number out of the air), why is it so difficult to admit that it ALL is?

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

The notion that there could be anything unusual, or negative, about claiming that there is more to Christianity than the Bible, strikes me as displaying a kind of militant ignorance of two thousand years of church history.

Note that that's about three hundred years more history than the Bible has.

Whatever "divine" revelations that christians have recieved in the last 2000 years regarding biblegods will, are rendered unreliable, and IMO pointless, since they only seem to have led to how many thousands of churches with conflicting beliefs. Not to mention MILLIONS of murders.

-Ubercat

[seebs]

Is the bible inerrant, or isn't it?

This depends on which of a half-dozen or more meanings of "inerrant" you hold to.

How can you admit that such and such parts are mythical, but claim that others aren't?

How can you believe that the comics are not literal truth, but claim that the front page news is?

1. The Bible is a collection of disparate works. Multiple "books", representing a variety of literary types, from "myth" to "history" to "polemic".
2. The Bible contains stories about people telling stories.

Either of these alone would be a perfectly adequate explanation.

Both have been presented before.

I cannot imagine how someone able to string words together in grammatical sentences on a consistent basis could be unable to manage the notion that a single bound volume may contain multiple works by different authors, crossing multiple genres of writing.

What you guys do is equivalent to reading ancient Greek myth, and concluding that Hermes is real, but the other gods were just make believe.

No. It's equivalent to taking a sampler of "well-known Greek writings", and claiming that the myths, the political essays, and the histories, were three different types of text.

Am I out of place to ask WHY?

Frankly, given that you have been answered repeatedly, and you have apparently ignored those answers consistently, and even proudly asserted that you neither know nor care what the actual people you're talking to believe... Yes.

You would not be out of place to ask a question if you were listening to the answer.

If 60% of the bible is just stories (pulled that number out of the air), why is it so difficult to admit that it ALL is?

Because it would be dishonest to "admit" something that doesn't seem very reasonable or likely at all.

Why, having admitted that Aesop's fables are not literal accounts of events, do I insist on arguing that Plato's philosophical writings are a genuine attempt to resolve philosophical questions? Why, having admitted that the Onion presents satirical headlines, do I refuse to admit that the headlines in the New York Times are 100% fictional?

[Nice Squirrel]

Is the bible inerrant, or isn't it? How can you admit that such and such parts are mythical, but claim that others aren't?

False Dichotomy.

What you guys do is equivalent to reading ancient Greek myth, and concluding that Hermes is real, but the other gods were just make believe. Hermes as he represents forces in the natural world is real, as he is a messenger to the Gods that is not real.

Am I out of place to ask WHY? If 60% of the bible is just stories (pulled that number out of the air), why is it so difficult to admit that it ALL is?Because that would be a false dichotomy. If a scientific paper has errorouniously published some wrong data, are the conclusions in error?

[Nice Squirrel]

So christianity is the sum total of the bible, and whatever people who call themselves christians make up as they go along.


Your confusing experience, scholarship, wisdom, etc. with creative fictionalizing.

[seebs]

Whatever "divine" revelations that christians have recieved in the last 2000 years regarding biblegods will, are rendered unreliable, and IMO pointless, since they only seem to have led to how many thousands of churches with conflicting beliefs. Not to mention MILLIONS of murders.

I don't think you even understood what was at issue, so this may not be intentionally a red herring, but it's still a red herring.

At issue is your implication that there is something wrong with the claim that there is more to Christianity than the Bible.

Christianity predates the Bible, contains many things other than the Bible, and continues to develop.

The question of whether every one of these changes meets your personal approval is a pure red herring. The initial claim must be dealt with first.

Once you've granted that there is a lot more to Christianity than the Bible, and always has been, then it becomes possible for us to fruitfully explore other questions.

But as long as this is a red herring, I'm not taking it.

[Ubercat]

I don't see these are related.

Save or forgive? Compassion and understanding is what he brings.

Good question. Got a couple of days to discuss this in MF&P?

I don't know nor care.

In accordance with the scriptures.
Doesn't matter.
don't know, nor care.

Tribal religion vs. Universal religion. You are arguing for literalism here.

There was probably a big flood that spawned the story in the epic of Gilgamish, but did not cover the Earth although Mean Squirrel did freeze it over before humans arrived.

That is a metaphorical story about spiritual experiences and how as you experience God words fail to describe the experience.

This post is beyond my technical expertise to reply to. So I'll just make a few points.

If Adam and Even didn't commit the first sin, where did it come from? Just something biblegod threw into the mix for fun?

You don't care what would happen to you if you weren't saved? Then why bother being saved?

I guess the ressurection is pointless to discuss. You could care less about biblical contradiction.

You don't care who decides who gets saved? So if biblegod created billions of people with the express purpose of NOT saving (forgiving, whatever) them, that would be ok? Your god would be fair and just in your eyes? I can see that if salvation/forgiveness doesn't really serve a purpose, then it wouldn't matter.

I'm not sure what you meant by tribal religion. Were you claiming that the Israelites had a different god than you? If not, WHEN did he decide to turn "nice?"

Your interpretation of the Babel story seems pretty far out there, but to each his own, right?

-Ubercat

[angela2]

So what is the "more" to christianity? What distinguishes it from the personal revelations, and biblical interpretations throughout history which have led to church schisms, pogroms, crusades, and various genocides? Was biblegod not thinking when he left his book open to your interpretation?

You're still claiming that books cause people to commit murder? Do really believe that? I can't see how a conversation is possible given your illogical reasoning.

[Ubercat]

You guys claim the ability to pick the "true" bits out of the bible, to support your beliefs. Good for you.

You guys insist that there's more to christianity than the bible. Fine. You refuse to explain how that "more" is not to blame for millions of deaths. Good for you.

Your beliefs are too amorphous for me. Debating you guys is like treading quicksand. Every point I try to grab onto just sinks into the muck of ... I don't even KNOW what. I don't think a REAL god would be content to let his children believe just whatever they want to. He'd let them know the score.

I think I'm out of this thread. It's giving me a headache, and I'd rather go play Dominions 3

-Ubercat

[angela2]

If some parts of scripture were proven a "crock", would it really matter to you in the long run?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'a crock.' Do you mean that there are things written in scripture that are not factually correct? What kind of things?
Would it make it necessary to abandon your faith?

I doubt it.
Depends on what you're talking about. Let's say that someone found a body that could be incontrovertibly identified as that of Jesus Christ. Yes, if Jesus Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, I would abandon my faith.

Or if someone could prove indubitably that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate. Yes.

[Ubercat]

You're still claiming that books cause people to commit murder? Do really believe that? I can't see how a conversation is possible given your illogical reasoning.

What caused Hitler to go after the Jews? If people were as logical as you insist that they are, there would be a hell of a lot less wars going on.

But of course no one has ever went to war because someone else had a different biblical interpretation. Right........

I'm out.

-Ubercat

[Steven Mading]

I think I'm out of this thread. It's giving me a headache, and I'd rather go play Dominions 3

One of the most frustrating things I find about dealing with liberal (in the English language sense of the word, not the political affiliation sense of the word) religionists is when they make the claim that the oppressive fundamanetalist literalists are not following in the true spirit of the religions, while the liberal religionists are. (You know the drill - "Jerry Falwel isn't a *real* Christian, *real* Christianity is much better than that", or "The taliban aren't *real* muslims, Islam is actually the religion of peace...") Why I find this frustrating is that it's obvious that those fundamentalist people *are* following the religion as written down. It's the more liberal modernized followers of the religion that are deviating from what the religion says - and that's a GOOD thing that they are, but a BAD thing that they attribute their position to the religion, thereby giving dangerous credibility to the (much more evil) version of the religion one would get if one actually read the scriptures and believed them.

[angela2]

But of course no one has ever went to war because someone else had a different biblical interpretation. Right........

Lots of people disagree on biblical interpretation. If there were no intervening varibles as you seem to be claiming, they would all be murderers. That's silly.

[angela2]

Why I find this frustrating is that it's obvious that those fundamentalist people *are* following the religion as written down.
How so?

[Nice Squirrel]

This post is beyond my technical expertise to reply to. So I'll just make a few points.

If Adam and Even didn't commit the first sin, where did it come from? Just something biblegod threw into the mix for fun?
This assumes the creation stories are to be taken literally as fact. I think we have been through this enough now.

You don't care what would happen to you if you weren't saved? Then why bother being saved?Because I understand that it isn't the afterlife what matters but this life, the one we have.

I guess the ressurection is pointless to discuss. You could care less about biblical contradiction.No arguing technical points on reports of the resurrection are pointless. It is like looking at the moon and worrying about the finger pointing to it being that of a man or a squirrel.

You don't care who decides who gets saved?
No it is not my concern. I'll leave it up to God to do the deciding. I will help those in ways that I can, but it is not my place to look at someone and to tell them they are going here nor there.

So if biblegod created billions of people with the express purpose of NOT saving (forgiving, whatever) them, that would be ok? Depends on the BBQ sauce.

Your god would be fair and just in your eyes?
What does fairness and justice have to do with anything? This is something you assumed. What matters is the sauce!

I can see that if salvation/forgiveness doesn't really serve a purpose, then it wouldn't matter.Are you assuming that salvation/forgiveness is off in the future? Or here now?

I'm not sure what you meant by tribal religion. Were you claiming that the Israelites had a different god than you? If not, WHEN did he decide to turn "nice?"See what Seebs wrote.

Your interpretation of the Babel story seems pretty far out there, but to each his own, right?Not to those who have had such an experience.

[Nice Squirrel]

You guys claim the ability to pick the "true" bits out of the bible, to support your beliefs. Good for you.
Really? Where did we do this?

You guys insist that there's more to christianity than the bible. Fine. You refuse to explain how that "more" is not to blame for millions of deaths. Good for you.Wow what a jump of logic!

Your beliefs are too amorphous for me. Debating you guys is like treading quicksand. Every point I try to grab onto just sinks into the muck of ... I don't even KNOW what. I don't think a REAL god would be content to let his children believe just whatever they want to. He'd let them know the score. That is what happens when we grow in faith. We move out of the childish realms of being told what to believe and begin to dig deeper to find meaning and purpose in our own lives.

I think I'm out of this thread. It's giving me a headache, and I'd rather go play Dominions 3Have fun! :wave:

[geddit?]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'a crock.' Do you mean that there are things written in scripture that are not factually correct? What kind of things?

Say that it was proven a nut named John Doe actually authored 1, 2 or 3 books of the new testament - Would the baby have to go out with the bath water?


Depends on what you're talking about. Let's say that someone found a body that could be incontrovertibly identified as that of Jesus Christ. Yes, if Jesus Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, I would abandon my faith.


Pretty much impossible to prove as I see it, but....

Why? What if someone screwed up the facts, allegory or whatever you choose to label it?


Or if someone could prove indubitably that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate. Yes.

LOL! As likely as someone proving indubitably that Jesus Christ was playing a big joke on the world.