Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "Animatedirt"Most religion is bad. Even in my own denomination there are aspects of it which I see as destructive, however this does not therefore make the basis, Christ, destructive. It is the human influence and greed that makes it so.

Wow. That's like saying...
Most White Supremism/neo-Nazism is bad. Even in my own denomination there are aspects of it which I see as destructive, however this does not therefore make the basis, Hitler, destructive. It is the human influence and greed that makes it so.

And Jesus was human...or so they say...until the so-called Great Commission. Of course, this commission doesn't happen until he becomes a zombie:
Matthew 28:19-20: And [resurrected] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
What is the greatest of these commandments?
Mark 12:28-31: One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Christians just can't seem to get it straight. Right here Jesus is telling everyone that can read that God is one; not one of three. But that looses sight of the tack I'm making. On to the Great Commission and what he taught the disciples what to teach everyone.

Christians do not seem to realise that Jesus' ministry, if one can call it that, was a ministry of an apocalyptic nature. How do we know this? Go back two chapters to find a lesser commission:
Matthew 10:5-7: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven is near.”
Of course, Mark, which was written first says it first in the first chapter:
Mark 1:14, 15: After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"
Now that we have the set-up, what DID Jesus teach? Well, I submit that whoever wrote it, Jesus’ main principle was preaching the end of the world with salvation (or the way to ACHIEVE salvation). Unfortunately, Jesus did not develop a full or coherent ethical system which would have provided a basis for teaching proper behavior and attitudes to gain salvation. Instead, there is a quilt of unclear and contradictory homilies and pronouncements.

So why does this make Christ dangerous? In short, here are his teachings:
•   Abandon all your Earthly ambitions.
•   Forsake your Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers.  
•   Sell everything you own and use the money to do good works.  
•   Avoid receiving any Earthly reward for your good works.  
•   Follow Mosaic Law, both the letter and the spirit of it.  
•   Abstain from all sin, inside and out;
•   Abstain from covetousness
•   Abstain from anger
•   Abstain from lust.
•   Abstain from adultery.  
•   Do WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO to abstain from lust.  
•   Practice strict nonviolent pacifism.
•   Do not resist evil.
•   Do not strike back.
•   Do good to those who hate you.  
•   Practice mercy and forgiveness and peacemaking.
•   Do not judge others; Judgment Day will come soon enough.  
•   Seek to purify your own character, strive to "be perfect, even as your father in Heaven is perfect."
•   Over-fulfill the Law seeking to follow the spirit of it as well as the letter.
•   Practice forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, and peacemaking.
•   Kill those that do not believe.
•   Abstain from swearing false oaths.

Can anyone not see the danger inherent in the above? You know, I think it may be a good thought experiment to list as many 'dangerous' things one can glean from this list. Hopefully, believers will chime in and try to have us understand it all.

20 looks? No one feel like thinking, I reckon.

zomg a long list of things you don´t like about christianity complete with a comparison to nazi germany

zomg zomg zomg

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Animatedirt"Most religion is bad. Even in my own denomination there are aspects of it which I see as destructive, however this does not therefore make the basis, Christ, destructive. It is the human influence and greed that makes it so.

Wow. That's like saying...
Most White Supremism/neo-Nazism is bad. Even in my own denomination there are aspects of it which I see as destructive, however this does not therefore make the basis, Hitler, destructive. It is the human influence and greed that makes it so.

Hi Gawen, I've not been on over the weekend.  I was not ignoring you or this post.

If you don't understand Adventism, then you can't really understand the statement.  In short, Adventism tends to breed legalism, (why?  Because people take over as God's authority and tend to add rules or try themselves to enforce rules that needn't be followed as a "must do this or quit this first before...") that is a strict belief that being a Christian is a set of rules (just as you list below) to follow in order to gain/deserve salvation.  It's a gift that as gifts usually are, they are free and you didn't (necessarily) do anything for them.  But one thing to think about is the best and most meaningful gifts come from friends, not strangers.

Quote from: "Gawen"And Jesus was human...or so they say...until the so-called Great Commission. Of course, this commission doesn't happen until he becomes a zombie:
Matthew 28:19-20: And [resurrected] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
What is the greatest of these commandments?
Mark 12:28-31: One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Christians just can't seem to get it straight. Right here Jesus is telling everyone that can read that God is one; not one of three. But that looses sight of the tack I'm making. On to the Great Commission and what he taught the disciples what to teach everyone.

You seem to lose sight of Jesus claimed to serve the Father God and was His Son, and claimed Himself to be God by saying He is the I Am...so later when Jesus says He's leaving, but is sending the Holy Spirit, He is one part in three that make God.  It may be easiest to think of this as we think humans to be, Mind, body, and soul.  Maybe the soul part is less of a part to the Atheist, but certainly you can see a person being two things that make the one.

Quote from: "Gawen"Christians do not seem to realise that Jesus' ministry, if one can call it that, was a ministry of an apocalyptic nature. How do we know this? Go back two chapters to find a lesser commission:
Matthew 10:5-7: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven is near.”
Of course, Mark, which was written first says it first in the first chapter:
Mark 1:14, 15: After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"
Now that we have the set-up, what DID Jesus teach? Well, I submit that whoever wrote it, Jesus’ main principle was preaching the end of the world with salvation (or the way to ACHIEVE salvation). Unfortunately, Jesus did not develop a full or coherent ethical system which would have provided a basis for teaching proper behavior and attitudes to gain salvation. Instead, there is a quilt of unclear and contradictory homilies and pronouncements.

So why does this make Christ dangerous? In short, here are his teachings:
•   Abandon all your Earthly ambitions.
•   Forsake your Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers.  
•   Sell everything you own and use the money to do good works.  
•   Avoid receiving any Earthly reward for your good works.  
•   Follow Mosaic Law, both the letter and the spirit of it.  
•   Abstain from all sin, inside and out;
•   Abstain from covetousness
•   Abstain from anger
•   Abstain from lust.
•   Abstain from adultery.  
•   Do WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO to abstain from lust.  
•   Practice strict nonviolent pacifism.
•   Do not resist evil.
•   Do not strike back.
•   Do good to those who hate you.  
•   Practice mercy and forgiveness and peacemaking.
•   Do not judge others; Judgment Day will come soon enough.  
•   Seek to purify your own character, strive to "be perfect, even as your father in Heaven is perfect."
•   Over-fulfill the Law seeking to follow the spirit of it as well as the letter.
•   Practice forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, and peacemaking.
•   Kill those that do not believe.
•   Abstain from swearing false oaths.

Can anyone not see the danger inherent in the above? You know, I think it may be a good thought experiment to list as many 'dangerous' things one can glean from this list. Hopefully, believers will chime in and try to have us understand it all.

While I confess some things seem confusing, most of these fall under the "Text without a context is a pretext" and then there's the point that most of these in doing are not dangerous.  I'm not certain, for example, why it is dangerous to 'do good to those that hate you' or 'abstain from anger'...?

The dangerous part is taking these short bullet points as What God Teaches without seeking what they mean in context.

Gawen, the above post is very similar to legalistic thinking...the exact thing I am speaking of when I say that aspects of my own denomination are dangerous.  You know the basics...the rules as you see them, but have no understanding of the whole point.  To then blindly follow the 'rules' is to follow them because in your eyes they are black and white and you see the rules as the road to salvation.

Welcome back AD. I wasn't going for the destructive qualities of any or various denominations. I was going for your statement that Jesus is not destructive. I've shown you a dozen or so alleged ethical (or moral) instructions laid down in three synoptic gospels, purporting to come from Jesus himself, showing the way to gain salvation. These instructions are dangerous simply because there is an underlying illogic that is predicated upon a false assumption, as I said above, the ethics of Jesus are apocalyptic in nature. These instructions become clashing, contradictory, equivocal, opposed and vacillating.  That in themselves are dangerous.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"zomg a long list of things you don´t like about christianity complete with a comparison to nazi germany

zomg zomg zomg

I suppose you could see that. Change the Hitler/National Socialism to Stalin/Stalinist Communism and you get the same idea. That was not, however, the idea I was putting across.
Secondly, I made no list of things I "don't like about Christianity". That list IS Christianity, whether one likes it or not.

Those who try to enforce all of those morals are considered to be nuts even by the rest of the Christians.  They prefer a more loving (or at least a less strict) form of Christianity.

Quote from: "Gawen"Welcome back AD. I wasn't going for the destructive qualities of any or various denominations. I was going for your statement that Jesus is not destructive. I've shown you a dozen or so alleged ethical (or moral) instructions laid down in three synoptic gospels, purporting to come from Jesus himself, showing the way to gain salvation. These instructions are dangerous simply because there is an underlying illogic that is predicated upon a false assumption, as I said above, the ethics of Jesus are apocalyptic in nature. These instructions become clashing, contradictory, equivocal, opposed and vacillating.  That in themselves are dangerous.

Likewise I could list out things others have said that are "dangerous" out of context.

You've listed these supposed "dangerous" instructions, but fail to supply the full context.  That's easy to do.  Lots of Christians promote sayings of Einstein in the same light...does that prove God...since we all seem to be of the same idea, that he was a genius and very intelligent?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Gawen"Welcome back AD. I wasn't going for the destructive qualities of any or various denominations. I was going for your statement that Jesus is not destructive. I've shown you a dozen or so alleged ethical (or moral) instructions laid down in three synoptic gospels, purporting to come from Jesus himself, showing the way to gain salvation. These instructions are dangerous simply because there is an underlying illogic that is predicated upon a false assumption, as I said above, the ethics of Jesus are apocalyptic in nature. These instructions become clashing, contradictory, equivocal, opposed and vacillating.  That in themselves are dangerous.

Likewise I could list out things others have said that are "dangerous" out of context.

You've listed these supposed "dangerous" instructions, but fail to supply the full context.  

I'm thinking you're not understanding. Once again I'll tell you that the overall context was apocalyptic in nature. The end of the world is near. Words were injected in the hero's mouth to show the way to salvation. The Jesus ministry taken out of Matthew, Mark and Luke was all about salvation and the way to achieve it.
If I am wrong, suppose you show me the correct context then. Or at least reconcile the above requirements in context. If you insist on sidestepping the points (Einstein for example), our discussion has nowhere to go and basically at an end.

Quote from: "Gawen"I'm thinking you're not understanding. Once again I'll tell you that the overall context was apocalyptic in nature. The end of the world is near. Words were injected in the hero's mouth to show the way to salvation. The Jesus ministry taken out of Matthew, Mark and Luke was all about salvation and the way to achieve it.
If I am wrong, suppose you show me the correct context then. Or at least reconcile the above requirements in context. If you insist on sidestepping the points (Einstein for example), our discussion has nowhere to go and basically at an end.

Wait...you listed the problems and "danger" points, and want me to go and find these all in context?  I can certainly give it a shot on a few, but all would amount to much that is already available with a simple search on the concept, online.  You made the list and said they are dangerous.

Even in "apocalyptic" in nature, how is returning good for to those that hate us dangerous?  In context (off the top of my head), it is not up to humans to be judge and executioner in "apocalyptic" matters.

Frankly, I do not know a Christian that practices these requirements. Abstaining from adultery is about the only exemption. And since Jesus has (the above) requirements to get to Heaven, and that virtually all Christians do not or can not observe or fulfill all the requirements, they are in "danger"  of never making it to the pearly gates, let alone through them.

Animated dirt is going to have a fun time reconciling these requirements. And of course, these are Christian Family Values (â,,¢) as they are considered moral or ethical teachings. It's going to be difficult to reconcile "Forsake your Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers" with family values. What about "Practice strict nonviolent pacifism" with "Kill those that do not believe"?

These are pretty much absolutes. Don't do this....don't do that. Do this....do that. So what makes them dangerous? Well, look at Westboro Baptist Church; Jim Jones for a couple examples. But why pick on them? Because they pick and choose. They read into THEIR context of what scripture means. It's why there have been 36,000 denominations of Christianity. There's an awful lot of abstaining in these requirements. Dangerous in that they seek to dehumanify (new word - I reckon if Sarah Palin can make a new word, I can as well) the masses.

I'm waiting for the next Crusade where it is righteous to "Kill those that do not believe". But then again, we have Northern Ireland most of Africa and Bosnia until that happens.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Wait...you listed the problems and "danger" points, and want me to go and find these all in context?

Why not? You have to take off the god-goggles to see it.

QuoteI can certainly give it a shot on a few, but all would amount to much that is already available with a simple search on the concept, online.

I would have expected you had done this in your last post.

QuoteYou made the list and said they are dangerous.
Even in "apocalyptic" in nature, how is returning good for to those that hate us dangerous?  In context (off the top of my head), it is not up to humans to be judge and executioner in "apocalyptic" matters.

Because you cannot reconcile it with other utterances of Jesus. One is free to pick and choose what they want to believe or what context they want to have it in. Jesus was a lousy teacher. He'd have never made a philosophy professor.

I don't think the idea of Jesus as a good teacher or a revolutionary character is dangerous, but I do think once you start to worship something that spells out trouble.

Quote from: "Gawen"Frankly, I do not know a Christian that practices these requirements. Abstaining from adultery is about the only exemption. And since Jesus has (the above) requirements to get to Heaven, and that virtually all Christians do not or can not observe or fulfill all the requirements, they are in "danger"  of never making it to the pearly gates, let alone through them.

What is dangerous is someone spouting off ideas of which he/she has just exhibited here has no clue to how salvation works.  It would be best to either search online for the meaning of the Gospel or simply quit regurgitating false claims.

It might also help to not try to apply old testament laws, and ignore that Jesus dude when he says to rip your eyes out or cut your dick off, "For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." (though this is perfectly logical assuming sin/hell in the context of the pre-crucifixion days of no salvation)

Quote from: "Gawen"Christians do not seem to realise that Jesus' ministry, if one can call it that, was a ministry of an apocalyptic nature.

Plenty of Christians realize this. That's why historically there's no shortage of apocalyptic sects, usually built around Matthew and Revelation. Further, there are OT prophecies that can be read as indicating the end times would come with the messiah.

However, Paul explains that the current age was kept secret by God, and Christ will return. And, there are OT prophecies, particularly the suffering messiah passages, that don't work well with end times following the messiah.

It's more complex than you seem to know.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"It might also help to not try to apply old testament laws, and ignore that Jesus dude when he says to rip your eyes out or cut your dick off, "For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." (though this is perfectly logical assuming sin/hell in the context of the pre-crucifixion days of no salvation)

Misquotes lead to misinterpretations.

Quote from: "Voter"However, Paul explains that the current age was kept secret by God, and Christ will return.

Because you should always trust Paul over Jesus right?  Mark 9:1

Also where exactly does he say this?

Quote from: "Voter"And, there are OT prophecies, particularly the suffering messiah passages, that don't work well with end times following the messiah.

Which passages were these?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Misquotes lead to misinterpretations

I'm glad you figured out it was a misquote.  So what exactly is your criteria for this assertion?  Do you just not agree with it therefore it is a misquote?

I think we've lost focus here on the topic at hand.  Is Jesus destructive?  I don't think so.  I think belief is destructive.  Here's why.  Jesus was a Jewish preacher who preached to the Jewish people about the Jewish god and was someone who followed Jewish customs and practiced the Jewish law.  He was an apocalyptic Jew who believed that it was the end of days and was eventually executed as a criminal for sedition.  His life wasn't taken to paper until 40-70 years after his death by people who never knew or spoke the same language as Jesus or his followers.  Jesus was no more destructive then any other priest or preacher of his day.

The belief in Jesus (or other deities) on the other hand is destructive.  You don't have to be an abortion doctor shooter, a priest who uses the bible to condone the slavery of a race, a member of a church who fights to remove evolution from biology books but benefits from up to date vaccinations, a priest who "exorcises demons" by beating small children with sticks, a catholic priest pedophile, a war enthusiastic redneck who justifies war with the bible,  or any of the other millions of examples that show crazy people justifying their craziness based on religion, to see how belief can be destructive.  Belief gives people justification for thoughts and actions when and where no other is present.  Some of it is harmless, but some of it is destructive and just crazy.  Jesus will protect me on my drive home no matter how much I drink.  I believe my habits and lifestyle won't affect the world and if i'm wrong the rapture is right around the corner anyway.  I can afford not to study for that test, I believe (insert deity) will help me pass it.  Jesus I need you to ignore the children dying from drinking contaminated water oversees and help me figure out if I should tell my friend her husband is cheating on her.   If we had a more realistic view of reality maybe we could avoid suffering and become a little more sane.  You know so the human race doesn't blow itself up over whether or not to listen what to a Jew (Jesus) or a Pedophile (Muhammad) may or may not have said.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"It might also help to not try to apply old testament laws, and ignore that Jesus dude when he says to rip your eyes out or cut your dick off, "For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." (though this is perfectly logical assuming sin/hell in the context of the pre-crucifixion days of no salvation)

Misquotes lead to misinterpretations.

Oho? and what's your interpretation?


From Matthew 5, King James version:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. "

Even if he's not talking about literal dismemberment, it's still freaky.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Because you should always trust Paul over Jesus right?  Mark 9:1

1 And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

I'm missing the connection between my statement and this verse. Can you explain?

QuoteAlso where exactly does he say this?

A number of places. Here's one:
1 Cor 2
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

And we can see that the current age is a parenthetical to the prophetic plan here:

Romans 11
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Although you should read all of Romans 9-11.

QuoteWhich passages were these?

Isaiah 53 is the best known example.

Quote from: "Voter"I'm missing the connection between my statement and this verse. Can you explain?

Sure.  We are referring to the apocalypse and specifically Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher.  You stated that Paul claims the current age was kept secret by God.  In the context of your post this means that the apocalypse will come later and that no one can know when that is.  This is a pretty common position by  Christians today because every prediction that has ever been made has so far been wrong.  The reason I quoted Mark 9:1 is because that was Jesus speaking.  In his own view not everyone in his audience will die before the apocalypse happens/kingdom of God comes into power.  This was what he supposedly said 2,000 years ago.  Still hasn't happened and Paul is trying to find a work around

Quote from: "Voter"A number of places.

Thank you for the quotes.  I wanted 2 things from you finding those and reading them.  1st I honestly wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.  2nd why do you think this topic has been covered in so many places?  The Apocalypse was expected by masses just like Jesus expected it to happen and ... well you can plainly see we are here.  This was a big problem for the early churches that Paul was trying to maintain.  In Christianity it has been the end since the beginning.

Quote from: "Voter"Isaiah 53 is the best known example.

In that passage it does not once refer to the Messiah.  Do you have another example?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Oho? and what's your interpretation?

From Matthew 5, King James version:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. "

Even if he's not talking about literal dismemberment, it's still freaky.

Did I say you misinterpreted?  Even so, then since you understand it better than you quote it, what is "freaky" about it?  Is it any different than the guy that was hiking in Utah, fell in and managed to get his arm wedged between rocks, was there for a couple of days (I don't remember exactly how many days) and eventually cut his own arm off to save his life?  Freaky, yes.  But he lived.  If God is true, and there's no way to prove God aside from God Himself doing so, then the above statement rings with the same truth as the hiker and his arm who simply saved his physical life.  Jesus is speaking of the individual and his/her soul or life eternal...as He claims to give.

So...did you misquote?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Sure.  We are referring to the apocalypse and specifically Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher.  You stated that Paul claims the current age was kept secret by God.  In the context of your post this means that the apocalypse will come later and that no one can know when that is.  This is a pretty common position by  Christians today because every prediction that has ever been made has so far been wrong.  The reason I quoted Mark 9:1 is because that was Jesus speaking.  In his own view not everyone in his audience will die before the apocalypse happens/kingdom of God comes into power.  This was what he supposedly said 2,000 years ago.  Still hasn't happened and Paul is trying to find a work around

There's a number of problems with this.

First, Mark 9:1 simply says some will see the kingdom of god. Many take the very next verses - the transfiguration - as fulfilment. Personally I lean toward John and Revelation as fulfilment. There are other passages which would be stronger on your side, but they'll give you other problems.

Next, Paul wasn't "trying to find a work around" unless you admit he's prophetic, as those mentioned in Mark 9:1 and elsewhere hadn't all died yet. Further, you would need a very early date of writing of Mark or a very strong oral tradition, otherwise there's nothing for him to "work around" at the time of writing.

QuoteIn that passage it does not once refer to the Messiah.  Do you have another example?

I think the messianic interpetation of Isaiah 53 is best, but that should be pursued in another thread.

Another passage is Zechariah 12:10 and surrounding verses.

From Matthew 5, King James version:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. "

QuoteIs it any different than the guy that was hiking in Utah, fell in and managed to get his arm wedged between rocks, was there for a couple of days (I don't remember exactly how many days) and eventually cut his own arm off to save his life?

If you cannot tell the theological difference between the scripture above and the guy that cut off his arm, then I'm done with you.

Quote...the above statement rings with the same truth as the hiker and his arm who simply saved his physical life.  Jesus is speaking of the individual and his/her soul or life eternal...as He claims to give.

I'm done.

At any rate, what can possibly be so dangerous as:
MT 5:29-30, 18:8-9, MK 9:43-47: If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. (Note: Many believers insist that this admonition and others like it are to be taken figuratively, although others take even this admonition literally. The problem is that there is no clear and decisive method to determine whether a passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively. God could have foreseen this problem and should have provided an unambiguous solution.
MT 5:38-44: Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Do good to those that hate you. Doesn't do much for self preservation.
MT 5:42, LK 6:30, 35: Give to everyone who asks. Lend to everyone who wants to borrow.
MT 6:25-34, LK 12:22-31: Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. It makes me wonder what all the people on Titanic thought of this.
Mt 10: 15; Mt 11: 25: “…because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." This implies belief through faith and trumps education, critical thinking and intellectual honesty.
MT 19:12, Rom 8:13: Men should consider castration, thereby making themselves eunuchs, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. If you live after the flesh, you shall die, but if you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live. If this had actually been done, Christianity would have died out long ago.
Mk 10:29, Lk 18:29: A man who leaves his house, wife, brothers, parents, or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will receive special rewards. And they talk about family values.
Lk 14:26: One cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his mother, father, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even his own life. What a wonderful family valued man, that Luke.
Rom 1:26-27, 32: Men and women who commit unnatural sexual acts deserve to die. Of course, this is laid out in detail in the bible of what unnatural sex acts are. It's a really good thing Christian men and women who play butt darts, BDSM, masturbate each other and oral sex are not committing unnatural sex acts. I'm not real sure if Christians are stoned for adultery or homosexual acts these days.
Rom 13:1-4, PE 2:13-14: Be subject to every human institution. All authorities (laws and governments) are from God. Anyone care to remember Nazi Germany or Stalin?
1Cor 10:24: Put your neighbor's good ahead of your own. One could write a masters thesis on this alone.
Cor 1:9: “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves,  that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.”
Cn 2:8: Philosophy is to be shunned.
Thes 1:10-11: There are many who must be silenced.
Jn 5:14-15: Use prayer and anointing to cure illness.

I don't know how many other instances of scripture that are detrimental of life, body and social development. I don't know how many associations or institutions that would be considered dangerous due to Jesus, but here's a few:
American Spectator.

American Center for Law and Justice led by Marion "Pat" Robertson.

America's Promise Ministries. Anti-Semetic group.

Amway Corporation. Extensive ties with the Council for National Policy and provides funds bigoted causes.

Aryan Nations.  

Bill Bright, Campus Crusade for Christ. One of the more notable hate groups seeking to replace the Constitution with a strange brand of theocracy.

Billy Falling, Christian Voters League. Ties to LifeLine and the Randal Terry terrorist.  

Christian Association of PrimeTimers. Targets senior citizens and uses the money that retired people give to work toward destroying the Constitution and installing their brand of theocracy.

Chalcedon Foundation. Wishes to discard the Constitution and install themselves as the leaders of a theocracy.

Christian Coalition.

Christian Reconstructionism. These Christians focus on discarding the Constitution and the Democratic Republic in favor of theocracy. Like most fundamentalist Christians, this hate group also wishes to execute homosexuals. One of the most vocal bigots representing this hate movement is George Grant.

Citizens for Excellence in Education. Organization attempts to get State-sanction invocation to the Christian deities and creationism imposed in the public schools; includes the replacement of public schools with fundamentalist Christian schools paid for by tax dollars.

Collegiate Network. Impose State-sanctioned prayer to the Christian gods in public schools and stop sex education in public schools. Agenda includes the replacement of public schools with fundamentalist Christian schools paid for by tax dollars.

Concerned Women for America. Anti-abortion, anti-woman, and anti-homosexual rhetoric though a minor publication ironically aimed at women.

Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Anti Constitution and would install a theocracy in their own image. The hate group is violently homophobic and anti-woman and anti-ACLU. The membership is vocally homophobic.  Ties to the Rushdoony cult and Christian reconstructionist racist groups. Ties with the "Center for Christian Statesmanship,".  Co-conspirators include David Barton and Randall Terry -- two domestic terrorist leaders. Also conspires with Gary North, and Pete Peters. Has ties to the "Coalition on Revival" and the so-called "Christian Coalition."

Council for Conservative Citizens. Racism with special focus upon anti-Semitism.

Council for National Policy. Very secret but not so secret organization which works to discard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and seeks to impose theocracy in America -- theocracy done-up in their own image. Ties with Dobson and Focus On the Family cult. The group meets in secret yet Freedom Writer manages to `slip' reporters into their gatherings. At the Feb 7, 1998 gathering, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes, Phyllis Schlafly, and Christian Coalition president Donald Hodel attended.

Focus on the Family. One of the most blatant homophobic groups. Finances Promise Keeper cult to some extent. Sells fear to the gullible over the radio then sells books, tapes, tracts, magazines, et al. to the gullible to "solve" their problems. Fredric L. Rice has/had personal involvement with this hate group.

Free Congress Foundation.

Heartland Institute.

Institute for Justice.

Jack Chick Publications. The cult tries to make its followers believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of "Satanists" and "witches" in America which kidnap, torture, murder, and have eaten around 300,000 babies. Since there is no evidence, law enforcement agencies are obviously involved in the conspiracy. This cult hates Pagans and Wiccans most of all.

Jerry Falwell. Thankfully he's dead, but he had followers.

Jim Wickstrom. Christian Identity master with strong ties to the "Posse Comitatus," a cult which hates Jews and blames abortions on vague, unspecified "Jewish Doctors."  

John Ashcroft, United States Senator from Missouri. This clown wants to destroy the Constitution and construct a strange theocracy -- presumably with himself in charge.

Ku Klux Klan.  

Landmark Legal Foundation. Funds attempts to create tax-subsidized religious schools.

Lifeline Long Distance. Intolerance for homosexuals and use 10% of their revenues to finance anti-abortion agendas and anti-homosexual laws. Also verified to be financing Operation Rescue and the so-called Army of God. This hate group makes no apology for what it does.

Lyndon LaRouche. This hate monger is a very good example of what a belief in the Christian mythologies can do to someone when they are pathologically paranoid and hate-filled.

Manhatten Institute.

Nation of Islam.

National Association of Scholars.

National Empowerment Television.

National Interest.

National Right to Life.

New Criterion.

Operation Rescue. A domestic terrorist organization responsible for the murder of abortion providers. Cult leader Randal Terry preaches hatred and ignorance and the submission of females to their male masters, advocates the abolishment of the Constitution and the removal of women from the work force. Jeff White as puppet leader controlled by Terry.

Parental Freedom in Education. Funds attempts to create tax-subsidized religious schools and attempts to sneak cult followers into public school boards through second or third-hand organizations.

Partners Advancing Values in Education. Funds attempts to create tax-subsidized religious schools.

Pete Peters. He and his groups demand that Jews are controlling the world in conjunction with a so-called "New World Order" within which the United Nations will be taking over the United States.

Policy Research Institute. Funds attempts to create tax-subsidized religious schools. Agenda includes the replacement of public schools with fundamentalist Christian schools paid for by tax dollars.

Phineas Priesthood. The title "Phineas" is used by many Christian hate groups. The name is taken from the classical Christian mythology where Phineas murders married couple because they were of different races.

Promise Keepers. Anti-woman, anti-homosexual hate group. The rhetoric is that the Christian gods sanction the violent "taking back" of male's dominion over women -- all for the little woman's own good.

Public Interest.

Rodney O. Skurdal. Blatantly and vocally anti-woman bigot.

Scientology.  

Stormfront White Nationists.

The Army of God. Much like Operation Rescue only this one takes responsibility for their terrorist activities. This Christian group claims the responsibility for several abortion clinic bombing, including the now-infamous double-bombing specifically intended to murder the rescue workers aiding victims in the first blast.

The Bradly Foundation. Agenda includes the replacement of public schools with fundamentalist Christian schools paid for by tax dollars.

The Church of Jesus Christ Christian. Ideologically similar to Aryan Nations and Ku Klux Klan.  

The Heritage Foundation. Finances racist "research" such as the book "The Bell Curve."

The Institute for Historic Review. Anti-Semitic  

Jewish Defense League. The FBI has listed the JDL as a terrorist organization.

The John M. Olin Foundation.

The Moral Majority.  

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Leadership of this organization is becoming more and more Muslim. The hiring policy of this organization is racist and elitist. The group has historically done much good for society yet has become ever more corrupt over the years.

The Order. This hate group lead by Bob Mathews, which focuses on racism and abortion. He and his cult like to demand that abortion in the United States is "the suicide of the white race".

The Rutherford Institute.  

The Sarah Scaife Foundation.

The Sword and the Cross. Nnti-Semitic hate group.

The Union-Leader (newspaper.) Right-wing extremist publication.

Traditional Values Coalition. Anti-homosexual hate group; attempts to make people believe there is no such thing as a separation of church and State.

U. S. Tax Payers Party. Actively supports the domestic terrorist group Operation Rescue.

Voting Integrity Project.

West Minister Academy. Ties to the Knox Theological Seminary; a private school wherein children are taught to hate.

Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, Kansas. Rev. Fred Phelps.

White Aryan Resistance.

Virginia Trinitarian Pro-nomian Alliance (VTPA.) Overthrow the Constitution and remove the Bill of Rights. The followers are Christian Reconstructionists, which attempt to install theocracy in the United States.

Praise Jesus...there's nothing dangerous in you and your teachings...

Seems that since you can't beat AD's position, you're just burying him with more items than he probably has time to address.

Quote from: "Voter"but that should be pursued in another thread.

I think we've gotten off-topic too.  I'll repost your last post in a new thread and we can pick up there ^_^

Quote from: "Voter"Seems that since you can't beat AD's position, you're just burying him with more items than he probably has time to address.

I'm beating and burying him with more items Christians can't or won't address without special pleading and wishful thinking.

Just to clarify Jesus wasn't a philosopher. He is what, rather Whom, the philosophers seek.

Quote from: "Achronos"Just to clarify Jesus wasn't a philosopher. He is what, rather Whom, the philosophers seek.

Quote from: "Google Definitions"philosopher:
# a specialist in philosophy
# a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Sorry, but the Christians gods are anything but love. They are are duplicitous, contradictory and unclear in their inspiration to man; making themselves and too many of their believers avenging, hateful, wicked, dominating and manipulative. The Bible's teachings (Jesus's in particular), precepts and guidelines are absurd, fatally flawed and very much so questionable. And people glean family values out of that? Look up family values in the bible. What do you find? Look up "family" in the Bible.  The very first instance of the word is in Leviticus 20:5: “Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people."
Look up words such as "trust", "kindness", "compassion" and "honesty". Ironically, the very first act of compassion in the Bible comes from pagan Egypt. The Pharaoh's daughter, who at the risk of her own life rescued baby Moses from certain death, and adopted him into her home and raised him as her own son.

What could be more dangerous than Corinthians 1:9: “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves,  that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.”?

Oh, I know...Matthew 10:34â€"37: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

[Context? I said already that the superstitious authors of Jesus taught an apocalyptic doctrine of salvation...1900 years ago for superstitious goat herders. Paul's authors taught their own doctrine. People willing to take this mumbo jumbo for and from ancient superstitious people and try to apply it to modern times takes the entire thing out of context.]

Quote from: "Gawen"Sorry, but the Christians gods are anything but love. They are are duplicitous, contradictory and unclear in their inspiration to man; making themselves and too many of their believers avenging, hateful, wicked, dominating and manipulative. The Bible's teachings (Jesus's in particular), precepts and guidelines are absurd, fatally flawed and very much so questionable. And people glean family values out of that? Look up family values in the bible. What do you find? Look up "family" in the Bible.  The very first instance of the word is in Leviticus 20:5: “Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people."
Look up words such as "trust", "kindness", "compassion" and "honesty". Ironically, the very first act of compassion in the Bible comes from pagan Egypt. The Pharaoh's daughter, who at the risk of her own life rescued baby Moses from certain death, and adopted him into her home and raised him as her own son.

What could be more dangerous than Corinthians 1:9: “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves,  that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.”?

Oh, I know...Matthew 10:34â€"37: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

[Context? I said already that the superstitious authors of Jesus taught an apocalyptic doctrine of salvation...1900 years ago for superstitious goat herders. Paul's authors taught their own doctrine. People willing to take this mumbo jumbo for and from ancient superstitious people and try to apply it to modern times takes the entire thing out of context.]

Yet another fine example of your impeccable logic and reason. I've never encountered such clear thinking! It's truly refreshing! Please, please keep it coming! It's so...nuanced and balanced and I'd even dare say sophisticated in its magnitude of understanding and depth.  The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

I'd have never worked on that dang Bible degree hanging on my wall had I known this is what the Bible taught.  How did I not know this after the 5 years I spent studying every book in detail? Thank you for freeing my mind! God doesn't display the watered-down, cowardly, namby-pamby definition of love preferred by a 21st century quasi-rationalist! He says things that are hard to understand, and can't be tweeted! He actually wants us to think AND feel, and we can barely chew gum and walk at the same time! Abandon faith, folks!

[Context? If you think goat-herders are anything but hard-minded rationalists of the first degree, you haven't met any goat-herders. And if you think daily life isn't apocalyptic, then you've a) never tried to struggle against yourself and b) have yet to realize that big, dramatic end could be tomorrow for anyone. For an example of people taking modern atheistic superstitions to heart, go into any inner city wearing a brand new pair of nikes and a lot of gold (or just ask a group of teenagers in a small-town Florida movie theater to please not talk during the movie).]

Quote from: "Achronos"The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

Don't feel ashamed Achronos, the bible is a very difficult read, some parts are to be taken literally, others are not, however there is no indication as to which is which. Gawen is a very smart and yet friendly person and I am sure will provide you in assistance with understanding the true meaning of the bible. But first you need to open your mind, stop the nagging criticism and rational thoughts that you have and simply have faith with regards to what Gawen tells you. It is through opening yourself to Gawen's explainations that you will truley get to know and understand the word of god. I know this through my faith, it is the essence of what I am, have faith my friend, it is the only thing you can trust. You can not trust your thoughts they are simply random firings that have been compromised by the devil himself. You must simply trust and have faith in what you are told.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

Don't feel ashamed Achronos, the bible is a very difficult read, some parts are to be taken literally, others are not, however there is no indication as to which is which. Gawen is a very smart and yet friendly person and I am sure will provide you in assistance with understanding the true meaning of the bible. But first you need to open your mind, stop the nagging criticism and rational thoughts that you have and simply have faith with regards to what Gawen tells you. It is through opening yourself to Gawen's explainations that you will truley get to know and understand the word of god. I know this through my faith, it is the essence of what I am, have faith my friend, it is the only thing you can trust. You can not trust your thoughts they are simply random firings that have been compromised by the devil himself. You must simply trust and have faith in what you are told.

I love you.
 

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

Don't feel ashamed Achronos, the bible is a very difficult read, some parts are to be taken literally, others are not, however there is no indication as to which is which. Gawen is a very smart and yet friendly person and I am sure will provide you in assistance with understanding the true meaning of the bible. But first you need to open your mind, stop the nagging criticism and rational thoughts that you have and simply have faith with regards to what Gawen tells you. It is through opening yourself to Gawen's explainations that you will truley get to know and understand the word of god. I know this through my faith, it is the essence of what I am, have faith my friend, it is the only thing you can trust. You can not trust your thoughts they are simply random firings that have been compromised by the devil himself. You must simply trust and have faith in what you are told.

Scarecrow, is that you? I haven't seen you since the Yellow Brick Road!

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

Don't feel ashamed Achronos, the bible is a very difficult read, some parts are to be taken literally, others are not, however there is no indication as to which is which. Gawen is a very smart and yet friendly person and I am sure will provide you in assistance with understanding the true meaning of the bible. But first you need to open your mind, stop the nagging criticism and rational thoughts that you have and simply have faith with regards to what Gawen tells you. It is through opening yourself to Gawen's explainations that you will truley get to know and understand the word of god. I know this through my faith, it is the essence of what I am, have faith my friend, it is the only thing you can trust. You can not trust your thoughts they are simply random firings that have been compromised by the devil himself. You must simply trust and have faith in what you are told.

Scarecrow, is that you? I haven't seen you since the Yellow Brick Road!

That's not what a strawman is.

Quote from: "Achronos"Scarecrow, is that you? I haven't seen you since the Yellow Brick Road!

Please keep this on an amicable level, if you disagree with "my" logic or what I have said I am happy to hear what the flaws are in the logic. There is no need to resort to personal insults. If your intent was to insult me then you have suceeded, I feel insulted however I refuse to respond in kind.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That's not what a strawman is. ;)

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That's not what a strawman is. ;)

:bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"Scarecrow, is that you? I haven't seen you since the Yellow Brick Road!

Please keep this on an amicable level, if you disagree with "my" logic or what I have said I am happy to hear what the flaws are in the logic. There is no need to resort to personal insults. If your intent was to insult me then you have suceeded, I feel insulted however I refuse to respond in kind.

Um, how is saying the Wizard of Oz's Strawman is a man made out straw in any way a personal insult to you?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"Scarecrow, is that you? I haven't seen you since the Yellow Brick Road!

Please keep this on an amicable level, if you disagree with "my" logic or what I have said I am happy to hear what the flaws are in the logic. There is no need to resort to personal insults. If your intent was to insult me then you have suceeded, I feel insulted however I refuse to respond in kind.

Um, how is saying the Wizard of Oz's Strawman is a man made out straw in any way a personal insult to you?

This in response to my post

Quote from: "Achronos"Scarecrow, is that you?

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from deceiving by playing ignorant. It would be great if you could please address my post instead of this insulting comment which was offered by you as distraction rather than to address the issue at hand.

Quote from: "Achronos"Yet another fine example of your impeccable logic and reason. I've never encountered such clear thinking! It's truly refreshing! Please, please keep it coming! It's so...nuanced and balanced and I'd even dare say sophisticated in its magnitude of understanding and depth.  The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

It would have been better had you deconstructed my points instead of leaving me an insult.

QuoteI'd have never worked on that dang Bible degree hanging on my wall had I known this is what the Bible taught.

So? I'm not very impressed that you have a degree in supernatural studies written by ancient goat herders.

QuoteHow did I not know this after the 5 years I spent studying every book in detail?

For the same reason people think crystals will heal their every ills. Now, why not expand that wonderful mind of yours and spend five years each on the book of Mormon, Theravada, etc.

QuoteThank you for freeing my mind! God doesn't display the watered-down, cowardly, namby-pamby definition of love preferred by a 21st century quasi-rationalist! He says things that are hard to understand, and can't be tweeted! He actually wants us to think AND feel, and we can barely chew gum and walk at the same time! Abandon faith, folks!

Now you're getting it!

Quote[Context? If you think goat-herders are anything but hard-minded rationalists of the first degree, you haven't met any goat-herders.

Well, there's quite a few goat herders where I live. More cattle ranchers, though. I'd wager nearly every one of them is a theist...which in my understanding, leaves rationalism outside the church doors. Not entirely unlike you, except you bring unrationalism here.

QuoteAnd if you think daily life isn't apocalyptic, then you've a) never tried to struggle against yourself and b) have yet to realize that big, dramatic end could be tomorrow for anyone.

You're still having coherent problems with context I see.

QuoteFor an example of people taking modern atheistic superstitions to heart,

And you're still have misunderstandings of what superstitions are or mean

Quotego into any inner city wearing a brand new pair of nikes and a lot of gold (or just ask a group of teenagers in a small-town Florida movie theater to please not talk during the movie).

So five years of studying the bible has given you at least - wrong definitions of the words "apocalyptic" and "superstition". How odd. I've been studying the bible for nearly 3 times longer than you and I still maintain a coherent understanding of these words and the biblical definition of "apocalypse".

When you can study Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam unbiased for five years each, no need to gain a degree...come back here and let us know what you find out.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"The amount of time you've spent studying the Bible and its teachings is so evident, I honestly feel a bit ashamed that I nor anyone else on these boards are at the same level.

Don't feel ashamed Achronos, the bible is a very difficult read, some parts are to be taken literally, others are not, however there is no indication as to which is which. Gawen is a very smart and yet friendly person and I am sure will provide you in assistance with understanding the true meaning of the bible. But first you need to open your mind, stop the nagging criticism and rational thoughts that you have and simply have faith with regards to what Gawen tells you. It is through opening yourself to Gawen's explainations that you will truley get to know and understand the word of god. I know this through my faith, it is the essence of what I am, have faith my friend, it is the only thing you can trust. You can not trust your thoughts they are simply random firings that have been compromised by the devil himself. You must simply trust and have faith in what you are told.

Don't be so hard on him Stevil. He's spent a great deal of time and money to get that degree to back up his own preconceived suppositions only to find that thinking with his head is more efficient and less wishful than thinking with his heart. It must have been a great shock to him. How's he's going to tell his family that he's burnt that degree in the fireplace must be a great burden to bare, especially without Jesus there to carry him through it.

I have yet to see Achronos deliver a coherently constructed or deconstructed reply to my post. There are only two possibilities so far that he has not. He either cannot, or he will not. Degree or not, it seems to me it is much easier for him to provide snarky and insulting replies.

Quote from: "Gawen"I have yet to see Achronos deliver a coherently constructed or deconstructed reply to my post. There are only two possibilities so far that he has not. He either cannot, or he will not. Degree or not, it seems to me it is much easier for him to provide snarky and insulting replies.

That may be true, but his avatar is strangely compelling, I wonder what tricks are used to make it so.
I suppose it's the halo effect.
And the skeletal stare.
That's a Christ who doesn't enjoy seeing me sent to burn for eternity, but what can he do, rules is rules.

Sorry if I'm not as smart as the guy with a degree but what's an "atheist superstition"? And what does it have to do with anything in the thread?

I wonder if communion crackers are painted with lead-based paint.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"That may be true, but his avatar is strangely compelling, I wonder what tricks are used to make it so.
I suppose it's the halo effect.
And the skeletal stare.
That's a Christ who doesn't enjoy seeing me sent to burn for eternity, but what can he do, rules is rules.

Nah, he's watching people for using their "god given" brains instead of faith. If I were Jesus and saw that 25% of Americans are not faithful to me, I'd look that way to.

Quote from: "Gawen"Don't be so hard on him Stevil.

QuoteI was irritated by his sarcasm. So applied his own logic back on himself. I am still waiting for him to refute this logic

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Gawen"Don't be so hard on him Stevil.

QuoteI was irritated by his sarcasm. So applied his own logic back on himself. I am still waiting for him to refute this logic

*whispering*...I know. Keep up the good work!!!

Quote from: "Gawen"It would have been better had you deconstructed my points instead of leaving me an insult.

Um, you didn't make any points, hence the sarcasm.  I don't believe what you think we believe in this tirade of yours, so there's nothing to reply to.

QuoteSo? I'm not very impressed that you have a degree in supernatural studies written by ancient goat herders.

Not trying to impress anybody.  My point was that I have a degree in Bible and that you think you know more about it because of your "debunking logic" is laughable.  That's why I threw a little sarcastic humor out there.

You can be honest, and nobody will judge you, but have you legitimately read the Bible cover to cover?  Until you have, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

QuoteFor the same reason people think crystals will heal their every ills.

Oh.  Okay.  Getting a degree is the same thing as healing crystals in your mind.  Got it.  This explains a lot!

QuoteNow, why not expand that wonderful mind of yours and spend five years each on the book of Mormon, Theravada, etc.

Probably because I've never experienced Joseph Smith or any of the Buddhist gods (althgouh have studied see below).  They've not cared to make themselves known apparently.  This common, yet laughable, atheistic line of reasoning that we have to have considered every religion in order to reject it doesn't work man...

QuoteSo five years of studying the bible has given you at least - wrong definitions of the words "apocalyptic" and "superstition". How odd. I've been studying the bible for nearly 3 times longer than you and I still maintain a coherent understanding of these words and the biblical definition of "apocalypse".

When you can study Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam unbiased for five years each, no need to gain a degree...come back here and let us know what you find out.

First: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

"Apocalyptic" can mean: 1) describing or prophesying the complete destruction of the world, 2)momentous or catastrophic, or 3) of or resembling the biblical Apocalypse (OED).  I would also add 4) a struggle between good and evil.  Superhero comics are apocalyptic when the heroes strive against great villainy (and I would add at their best when this is so), they cease to be apocalyptic when heroes and villains devolve to mere protagonist/antagonist relationships.  Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is apocalyptic because it involves a momentous struggle between good and evil.  Despite being post-apocalyptic in sense (1) Stephen King's The Stand is apocalyptic in senses (2) and (4).  The biblical apocalyptic scenarios fit all four definitions.

Now, if what you mean is that people in the first century expected the world could end at any moment in a very literal and not merely personal sense, you are correct.  When by saying that you imply the modern world has somehow risen above that, you are horribly wrong.  Atheism hasn't made the world ending any less likely, it's just removed the supernatural from the equation.  At any moment an asteroid could hurtle into the earth, we are warned if we don't change our wicked ways the polar ice-caps will melt, and there is still the threat of world-ending nuclear or biological warfare.

Now, superstition means: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary . (Webster's.  The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is you are subject to the biases and philosophies of the dictionary writers, the current OED definition was meaningless.)

You can accuse me and the goat-herder of being superstitious in sense 1(b) only if you can demonstrate that we are indeed irrational in our attitudes toward God.  But seeing as how the whole point of the argument is whether or not belief in God could be rational sense 1(b) is useless in our discussion.

I accuse atheism of superstition in senses 1(a) and 2.  I believe atheism has a false conception of causation by the very fact that it believes something can be caused by nothing, and that it maintains it's notions despite an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of God.  As for other atheistic superstitions, the concept of evolution has developed quite a few, such as a belief that the newer is better than the older, that the fittest survives and thus that which survives is fittest, and that there is no good or evil merely action.  You can argue that this is a misapplication of atheism and evolutionary theory, but I can also argue that most of what is considered "superstition" within Christianity is a misapplication of Christianity.

As to the study of other religions, I have indeed studied Buddhism and Taoism with an open mind (not looking to convert, but with a goodhearted curiosity).  There are many admirable things within both, but they fall short of the mark.  Buddhism is good when it tells me to seek dispassion, not so good when it tells me to seek inaction.  Taoism is good (and has even enhanced my understanding of Christianity) when it tells me to deem something is to allow for it's opposite.  It's not so good for telling me which to prefer.  

Mormonism and Islam I have studied, not with an open mind, but the same way a banker compares a counterfeit note to a real one.

Alright. In this post, I'm going to leave aside everything you just said with the exception of one thing. Yes. I have read the bible. Once, cover to cover, the KJV, which was a grueling task. And again, cover to cover (and the New Testament twice) the NIV. I have read all the so called "lost" books, the book of Mormon and the JW bible. I have researched Buddhism, Shintoism, and Roman, Wicca/Pagan and Egyptian pantheism.  And I didn't need a religious experience to want to research any of them. Nor did I have a religious experience by researching any of them.

I research the bible in at least 6 various forms at least 4 days a week. I have tried to study Koine Greek and Modal Logic, both of which escape me. I use Bible Gateway exclusively for biblical research.

I have been a member of Internet Infidels Discussion Board (now known as Free Ratio Discussion Board) since 2003 - a Moderator there for 5 years in the Existence of God/s Forum, Moral Foundations & Principles Forum and the now defunct General Religious Discussions forum. I was Lead Administrator for one year, which means I was in charge of 50-60 Moderators in 31 separate forums. I am short a little over 200 posts to reach my 10,000th post. I have been a member of at least a dozen other discussion boards and the old MSN/Yahoo chats. I would make a wager, if I could prove it that I have posted on the internet more than 30,000 times all of which had something to do with religion.

I have been in a face to face debate with a Presbyterian minister that lasted for several months and an email debate with a deacon of the Disciples of Christ. I have been in the oldest Christian church and the biggest Christian church in the UK and stood in awe in both of them.

I have written over 300 pages (in MS Word) and amassed 200 times that from others. Both of which you have seen here.

All the above took place since 1997.

Eh...I'll throw in one more.

QuoteUntil you have {read the bible cover to cover}, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

We'll remember this and discount it for when you decide to talk about something you never personally experienced.

The rest of what I want to say will not be said because there is such a thing as courtesy...something you, as a Christian seem to lack. Besides, Whitney would spank me if I said it. At any rate, your debate style is one of Christian Superiority Complex (which I have seen numerous times over the years), full of snide remarks, logical fallacies and quite unprofessional; all coming from a person who says he has a theological degree. I hope you're not like this away from the computer.

I will take care of the rest of your current post in due time.
Edited to add: your post is still full of logical fallacies and Christian Superiority Complex but, I might as well add, much more professional.

Quote from: "Gawen"Alright. In this post, I'm going to leave aside everything you just said with the exception of one thing.

Pity, because there a few things I'd have liked you to address.  Particularly why you think experience applies to you but not to others; why you are certain you're not a brain in a vat and yet certain that someone's religious experience can only be false.

QuoteYes. I have read the bible. Once, cover to cover, the KJV, which was a grueling task. And again, cover to cover (and the New Testament twice) the NIV. I have read all the so called "lost" books, the book of Mormon and the JW bible. I have researched Buddhism, Shintoism, and Roman, Wicca/Pagan and Egyptian pantheism.  And I didn't need a religious experience to want to research any of them. Nor did I have a religious experience by researching any of them.

I research the bible in at least 6 various forms at least 4 days a week. I have tried to study Koine Greek and Modal Logic, both of which escape me. I use Bible Gateway exclusively for biblical research.

I have been a member of Internet Infidels Discussion Board (now known as Free Ratio Discussion Board) since 2003 - a Moderator there for 5 years in the Existence of God/s Forum, Moral Foundations & Principles Forum and the now defunct General Religious Discussions forum. I was Lead Administrator for one year, which means I was in charge of 50-60 Moderators in 31 separate forums. I am short a little over 200 posts to reach my 10,000th post. I have been a member of at least a dozen other discussion boards and the old MSN/Yahoo chats. I would make a wager, if I could prove it that I have posted on the internet more than 30,000 times all of which had something to do with religion.

I have been in a face to face debate with a Presbyterian minister that lasted for several months and an email debate with a deacon of the Disciples of Christ. I have been in the oldest Christian church and the biggest Christian church in the UK and stood in awe in both of them.

I have written over 300 pages (in MS Word) and amassed 200 times that from others. Both of which you have seen here.

All the above took place since 1997.

Very nice.

QuoteWe'll remember this and discount it for when you decide to talk about something you never personally experienced.

Please do.  I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on something when I haven't put in the time to try to understand it.  I don't doubt that you've studied the Bible as much as you have, but I'll be honest and say that I find that pretty impossible to believe considering the childish caricatures you assign to it.

QuoteThe rest of what I want to say will not be said because there is such a thing as courtesy...something you, as a Christian seem to lack. Besides, Whitney would spank me if I said it. At any rate, your debate style is one of Christian Superiority Complex (which I have seen numerous times over the years), full of snide remarks, logical fallacies and quite unprofessional; all coming from a person who says he has a theological degree. I hope you're not like this away from the computer.

Not quite sure what this is in reference to, but okay.  One would think the time I'm willing to put in in replying to you would be a quality identified as "courtesy" (especially given that you're clearly unwilling to actually try to understand what I'm trying to say).  I have no debate style because I'm not debating you or anyone.  I don't much care for debate because it results in trying to score points rather than trying to find truth.

QuoteI will take care of the rest of your current post in due time.

Please do.

Gawen I'm just curious, are you really interested in studying the Bible and what it actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time? Are you truly interested in learning about "contradictions" in the Bible, why they exist and what they mean? Are you truly interested in understanding the "bible puzzles" that exist? If you really and truly are interested in this subject for yourself, for no other reason but because you find the Bible interesting, it's wisdom and it's horrors, I could recommend a couple of starter books for you and an awesome website with podcasts. I'm not an apologist, and if most people on here knew I was a fan of what I'd recommend to you, they'd probably freak out, but I'm trying to determine if you have a true interest in the Bible as a historical, religious, spiritual and political collection of works, or if you just want to find "bad stuff" to "debunk" religion. If that's the case you'll hate what I have to recommend anyways so there is no need; but if the former is the case, which I suspect it might be. (I cannot imagine someone spending 4 days a week reading the Bible as you have just to "debunk" religion, OTH there are nuts out there) Anyways if you're interested, and sincerely want to learn about the Bible (not religion) then I'm happy to make a couple of suggestions, however if you're just trying to find "ammo" to tow the atheist party line, there is no point because you'll despise any sort of real scholarly work which treats the Bible fairly (like the Illiad or the Oddyssey would be treated).

Anyways just curious. Reply if you wish, if not that's fine too. Just curious because some of what you write appears to be written out of utter confusion about the Bible and religion because it IS confusing when Churches strip the Bible out of it's original context.

Quote from: "Achronos"Gawen I'm just curious, are you really interested in studying the Bible and what it actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time? Are you truly interested in learning about "contradictions" in the Bible, why they exist and what they mean? Are you truly interested in understanding the "bible puzzles" that exist? If you really and truly are interested in this subject for yourself, for no other reason but because you find the Bible interesting, it's wisdom and it's horrors, I could recommend a couple of starter books for you and an awesome website with podcasts.

Achronos, the Bible means whatever one gets out of it. It's subjective. I can go to a Southern Baptist, Presbyterian or Greek or Russian Orthodox and get what it "actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time" and how to apply such wisdom for today in their own particular fashion. Your take on it will not sway me.
There are contradictions in the Bible and try as they might, apologists explain them away with great spin to those that already believe. There are numerous contradictions in the bible; I have at hand about thirty. I like to throw them out to Christians that say there aren't contradictions. Sadly, they never get back to me. If there are contradictions in the Bible, then God's word is contradictory.
Throw out the books, then. Someone here might have the time to read them, but I tell you up front that I have read numerous apologists books and find them lacking.

QuoteI'm not an apologist...

But you are.

Quote...and if most people on here knew I was a fan of what I'd recommend to you, they'd probably freak out, but I'm trying to determine if you have a true interest in the Bible as a historical, religious, spiritual and political collection of works, or if you just want to find "bad stuff" to "debunk" religion.

Like I said, give us the names of these books. However, religion debunks itself quite regularly.

QuoteIf that's the case you'll hate what I have to recommend anyways so there is no need; but if the former is the case, which I suspect it might be. (I cannot imagine someone spending 4 days a week reading the Bible as you have just to "debunk" religion, OTH there are nuts out there)

Frankly, the reason I ever picked up a bible 15 or so years ago was to examine WHY i did not believe it in the first place. I have never been a believer. I wished to know why everyone around me did believe. The only way to do that was to read the bible without some sort of bias or slant to any particular denomination. I have succeeded in that endeavour. Now, if Christians could do the same, there would be less Christians.

QuoteAnyways if you're interested, and sincerely want to learn about the Bible (not religion) then I'm happy to make a couple of suggestions, however if you're just trying to find "ammo" to tow the atheist party line, there is no point because you'll despise any sort of real scholarly work which treats the Bible fairly (like the Illiad or the Oddyssey would be treated).

Define "real scholarly work". Do you define it this way because this "work" tows your Orthodox party line?

QuoteJust curious because some of what you write appears to be written out of utter confusion about the Bible and religion because it IS confusing when Churches strip the Bible out of it's original context.

That cannot be helped. When one denomination says one thing and another up the street says an entirely different thing. It's why there have been over 36,000 (yes, thirty six thousand) denominations of Christianity.
If there have been that many, then all of them save one is not true. You would have it that yours is true. All the others would say the same as yours. The problem is that none of the denominations can prove theirs is the one true 'way' in original context and that includes yours as well. This is where you get that superiority complex, I'd wager. All the denominations claim theirs is the superior. Some are just a little more aggressive than others.

Now Achronos...you're an intelligent person. I can see it in your writing. But in order for you to see religion my way, you simply must take off the god goggles. Your bias is too thick and you cannot seem to get past the glaring contradictions questionable precepts and other mindless and maddening junk in the bible. You cannot, it seems, think outside the box of your belief system. This is no different than a Muslim cannot think outside the box ...or a Presbyterian cannot side with a Jehovah's Witness. This is why you are at loggerheads between me and several other on the board here.
On the contrary, many atheists who are ex-believers can see why and how believers believe what they believe. They've been there...done that...and many have gotten the t-shirt.

I'm interested in those books and I may read one or two. But I'm telling you up front that if I have to rely on religious faith, which I'm sure I will have to do to make sense of what YOU consider TRUE in these books, well, we aren't going to get far at all. The reason I say this is just last weekend a friend who claims to be Southern Baptist (as are most people where I live) gave me a book called Pagan Ways. She asked me to read it, claiming that some of the stuff in it makes sense to her. I got to about page 12 and then started skimming. The book was full of fallacies, wishful uncritical thinking, contradictions, and no proof whatsoever. And this made sense to a person who said she would never leave the Southern Baptist Church.

I've rambled long enough, I reckon.

Quote from: "Gawen"the Bible means whatever one gets out of it. It's subjective. I can go to a Southern Baptist, Presbyterian or Greek or Russian Orthodox and get what it "actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time" and how to apply such wisdom for today in their own particular fashion. Your take on it will not sway me.

A simple "no, I'm not interested in the Bible, I only want to reaffirm what I already believe/do not believe" would have sufficed.

QuoteThere are contradictions in the Bible and try as they might, apologists explain them away with great spin to those that already believe. There are numerous contradictions in the bible; I have at hand about thirty.

Oh, only 30? You've studied the Bible for years and can only come up with 30? There are probably 30 contradictions in the Gospel of John alone. lol  :eek:

Which box would you like me think out of? I have been an atheist, and used to fluctuate back and forth between it and agnosticism on a daily basis. I was NOT raised in a religious home, became a Christian later in life, and then went towards atheism and now am comfortable with where I am as a Christian (not counting the second bout of atheism). I have studied other religions, I read the Dalai Lama, I find Hinduism of great interest. I have read all the New Atheists, I do not like Christian or Atheist Apologists and I try my best to look at a subject from all sides. I think there is a good, sound historical case to be made for the fact that the Apostle Paul was actually Simon Magus. I think the ancient Hebrews were clearly polytheistic, and see irrufutable proofs in the Hebrew Bible, and I cannot think outside the box? Yeah, okay! Right!

QuoteOn the contrary, many atheists who are ex-believers can see why and how believers believe what they believe. They've been there...done that...and many have gotten the t-shirt.

I guess I'm comfortable enough with where I am in life that I don't need a t-shirt to advertise my "beliefs" to the world in an attempt to seek attention or to convince others I'm "on the fringe" and am just more hip than the typical person on the street.

QuoteI'm interested in those books and I may read one or two. But I'm telling you up front that if I have to rely on religious faith, which I'm sure I will have to do to make sense of what YOU consider TRUE in these books, well, we aren't going to get far at all.

Again, you're assuming things about me that are not true. And even if I were to recommend something like that to you, I thought you said you began reading the Bible to, A. reinforce why you didn't believe, and B. to understand why it us believers believe? If B is true you should have finished that book on neo-Paganism. Just because you feel it is dren doesn't mean everyone does. I think some aspects of Hinduism is purely fantastical nonsense, but I read it anyways because I find other people's beliefs fascinating. I think some aspects of Buddhism are just not my cup of tea, but I read it anyway and try to understand it. The same goes for Jehova's Witnesses....I find their organization oppressive but I find the religion of interest. I find most neo-pagan new age stuff just too "fluffy bunny" for me, but I like to learn WHY people are drawn to it. OTH you seem to only care about reinforcing your beliefs or lack thereof. The fact that you admit you won't read something I recommend if you happen to disagree with it makes me really wonder why I should recommend anything at all? What would be the point? You've already made up your mind and admit you won't read anything that doesn't adhere to your world view. Huh? Shouldn't you be reading EVERYTHING from every perspective? You're right when you say most Christians do not do that. They only read what only reinforces their religion, but then so do you...so how are you any different than posters here? The reason I've butted heads with you here is because as someone who has claimed to study as you have and claims to be open minded you should be the first to be open to other possibilities. I certainly won't recommend any books to certain individuals because, well it's obvious, or it will be in a moment...LOL!

Anyways some books of interest:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament, by Robert M Price (excellent book, his own translation and gives great historical notes. No it is NOT just a "lost gospels" book....for example he explains how Galatians originally didn't have chapters 1 and 2, but those were added later on by the ecclesiastical redactor (whom he and other scholars believe was Polycarp of Smyrna)

The Great Angel a Study of Israel's Second God, by Margaret Barker (anything by her is brilliant)

Hebrew Myths the book of Genesis by Raphael Patai

The Bible, by Karen Armstrong (good introduction on form/source criticism, probably the best starter book for anyone who has only read the Bible, introduces the 4 source hypothesis for the Torah etc)

The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan

The Cross that Spoke (Crossan)

Anything by Bart Ehrman is good.

Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M Price


The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond E Brown, as the joke goes, if he had written this in the middle ages he would have been burnt at the stake. (he basically shows how the virgin birth stories were later additions to the gospels)

Then of course there is the classic "The quest for the historical Jesus" by Albert Shweitzer,

Jesus and Judaism, by EP Sanders (brilliant scholar on Jewish origins of Christianity, one of my favorites actually)

There are thousands more. It all depends on what you're interests actually are. These are not apologists all are real Biblical scholars, Armstrong leans more to being a popularizer but she knows her stuff.

The classic writers are all great too, and some of these are more tomes than books (Fr. Brown's book is like 600 pages on only 4 chapters in the New Testament) but if you like that stuff, go for it. If you just want an overview try Ehrman's books, Misquoting Jesus, a good starter. (you may have already read that though)

Also for a complete reading list try here:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/study_list.htm (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/study_list.htm)

Robert M Price also has a podcast titled "the Bible Geek"...check out his website or search iTunes. You can send in and ask questions and he'll answer you on his show. He's funny, brilliant, a member of the Jesus Seminar (the group that has been looking for 20 years a Jesus they themselves have created) and ascribes to the Christ myth hypothesis, but doesn't assume he "must" be right. He's got 3 years of back logged shows on iTunes, check them out. I thought I'd never post this on the boards because it would freak out way too many people. I don't fear critical scholarship though, I love it and it has answered more questions that long puzzled me about the Bible than anything I ever learned in Church, Divinity School or anything else. (Like, what is this stuff in Genesis about "let US create man", or why are there 2 creation stories? Or "why the heck is Jesus cursing fig trees?" Or about all this talk about "dragons and 8 headed beasts"....(these were actually chaos gods in the ancient world and YHWH slayed Tiamat the 8 headed chaos dragon) What does Isaiah 53 really mean in it's historical context? (it has nothing to do with jesus) Etc. If you've asked yourself these questions and really would like to begin to understand them, I strongly suggest you check out his podcast. I ask questions about once a week and had one answered just today, though I'll leave you guessing which person I actually am. I think you'll be surprised though.

I do hope our dialogue can be fruitful and if I've been short with you I do apologize.

Quote from: "Achronos"My point was that I have a degree in Bible and that you think you know more about it because of your "debunking logic" is laughable.  That's why I threw a little sarcastic humor out there.

You can be honest, and nobody will judge you, but have you legitimately read the Bible cover to cover?  Until you have, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

What does a "degree in the bible" entail? Is there anywhere I can get an advanced degree in something and only have to study one book, and maybe a few other books about that book?

Should we ignore all of your arguments since while you did type them on a computer you don't have a computer science degree and thus are not qualified to use one?

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that's not impressed by your"degree in the bible". I've met plenty of people with fairly advanced degrees in real sciences that aren't too bright, having a degree doesn't mean they're intelligent. In many cases it just means their parents could afford it and they can regurgitate information well.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteThere are contradictions in the Bible and try as they might, apologists explain them away with great spin to those that already believe. There are numerous contradictions in the bible; I have at hand about thirty.

Oh, only 30? You've studied the Bible for years and can only come up with 30? There are probably 30 contradictions in the Gospel of John alone. lol   yeah, based on my religion? Again, you are seeing what you want to see. You see me as a Christian, and then assume everything about me based on my religious attendance.

Can you point out a few denominations of christianity that do not make the claim that they're the only one that's right?

QuoteNow Achronos...you're an intelligent person. I can see it in your writing. But in order for you to see religion my way, you simply must take off the god goggles. Your bias is too thick and you cannot seem to get past the glaring contradictions questionable precepts and other mindless and maddening junk in the bible.

Quote from: "Achronos"ROFL! I have to laugh for 2 reasons: one, I have said NOTHING at all in defense of a believe in God, or even in the Orthodox Church, two; "blah, blah, blah". What I'm wondering about is your motivation in all this? Are you simply mining the Bible for things to "debunk" it? Do you do the same thing with the Greek myths? When was the last time you spent 15 years debunking Zoroastrianism? What is your motivation?

Could someone who's bored and has some time on their hands maybe put up a page or two of quotes from him where he defends his belief in god and the orthodox church?

It should be obvious that we focus on the bible because it's relevant in our time, when was the last time you met a follower of zoroastrianism? they don't need to be debunked because they're not the ones knocking on doors, shoving bibles in faces, protesting at abortion clinics, or trying to run for public office so they can legislate their morality.

QuoteJust because you feel it is dren doesn't mean everyone does.

Farscape fan?

Feel free DJ to continue the fight. I say fight because one cannot debate effectively with someone who throws out numerous fallacies in just about every post. Snarkiness and superiority complex's, not answering questions, moving goalposts etc etc etc are not conducive to debate either. I'm not bothering with him any more. Good luck

Quote from: "Gawen"Feel free DJ to continue the fight. I say fight because one cannot debate effectively with someone who throws out numerous fallacies in just about every post. Snarkiness and superiority complex's, not answering questions, moving goalposts etc etc etc are not conducive to debate either. I'm not bothering with him any more. Good luck

I was just throwing in my two cents out of boredom. Anyway, he's wrong, my girlfriends mormon parents talk to god all the time and He says everything in the book of mormon is true.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"

Quote from: "Gawen"Feel free DJ to continue the fight. I say fight because one cannot debate effectively with someone who throws out numerous fallacies in just about every post. Snarkiness and superiority complex's, not answering questions, moving goalposts etc etc etc are not conducive to debate either. I'm not bothering with him any more. Good luck

I was just throwing in my two cents out of boredom. Anyway, he's wrong, my girlfriends mormon parents talk to god all the time and He says everything in the book of mormon is true.

Makes sense to me.

The aforementioned authors are pretty much apologists each with their own spin. Some agree with the others, some don't. I won't go into all of them, but here's a couple
Margaret Barker - a Methodist minister. Developer of Temple Theology, an example - When a man enters the Holy of the Holies it becomes a mystical experience that transforms the man into an angel. This idea is allegedly related to the Resurrection. No bias here.

It's always easy after the Jesus mythicist destroys a certain argument for historicity to say certain arguments aren't the best arguments for a historical Jesus. When scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan (Crossan claims the resurrection did not literally occur) wave a dismissive hand and declare it's not necessary to take those arguments out of the closet, maybe all that closet contains are the emperor's old clothes. In my opinion this is liberal apologetics that seem to say we are so lucky when we read Paul critically he's actually a feminist and environmentalist. And by the way, Jesus was actually a liberal.

Crossan and Richard Horsley, among others, assert that Jesus led a covenant renewal movement. Crossan is the most prominent exponent of a noneschatological Jesus today. In 1973 he wrote that the scholarly consensus that Jesus' message was "apocalyptic eschatology" had become "extremely problematic."- The Continuum history of apocalypticism
It amazes me that all of them have two things in common. Jesus was real and they are satisfied to rewrite history that doesn't exist.

Robert Price, however, already resides in my library.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"Shouldn't the real point be that if orthodox christianity was the one true religion shouldn't there be no other denominations?

It depends on who you ask. Since I'm not trying to convince you, or anybody else that the Orthodox Church is "the one true Church" it means nothing to me. I just do not care. I only cared about you arguing straw men, and holding others to a standard in debate you were not holding yourself to. Since you're the atheist, I figured I'd have better luck pointing that out to you, than I would a Christian who thinks every word of the Bible is “god breathed”...(which BTW is NOT a doctrine of the Orthodox Church, so why so many Orthodox Christians demand this of themselves is beyond me)

What you are suggesting is what my dad says actually, "there should only be ONE Church" no others should exist...etc. I respect that POV, and it does make some sense, but then OTH who says that's how things should be? Where do we get the idea that “truth” is designated by the fact no other opinions should exist? Isn't this really just wishful thinking on our part that the world be a lot easier than it actually is? Isn't this just a way for us to say, “we wish truth, if it exists, was so plain it required no thinking on our part?” There is something to the idea that if God founded a religion, wouldn't it in fact be the only one, then again, who says? Different religions teach different things about this. And different Churches teach different things about this as well.

Generally speaking the existence of many ideas on a particular subject does not mean the the subject at hand doesn't have a single truth.  Evolution is true, yet there are sorts of other "theories" out there....the various other “ideas” does not mean there isn't a truth about the origins of life. The multiplicity of ideas/religions/philosophies says nothing about the truth of one or many. You seem to think because there are thousands of denominations that, well that means none can be true. But why? One could very well be true! With evolution one theory is in fact true despite all the other BS out there. A multiplicity of religions says nothing about whether one is or is not true, it only says there are a  bunch claiming to be true, as then of course not all religions claim to be "the only true" religion either.

QuoteCan you point out a few denominations of christianity that do not make the claim that they're the only one that's right?

Uh, yeah, most of Anglicanism for starters. Most Quakers also do not claim theirs is the only "right way" to God. Methodists as well. Also liberal Mennonites, and technically Orthodox Christianity which even though says it is the one true Church, does not say all non Christians are going to hell. Of course EVERY human group has some faction that says “this is not only the best way to live for us, it is the only way to live for us and for you too!” That is true of people of all beliefs, none beliefs and all the rest. There are atheists determined to make other people atheists simply because they think they have “found the one truth” and demand everyone else must adhere to this “one truth” as well. So while it is true one can find a Quaker here or there who has taught “only quakers go to heaven” these people are exceptions to the rule.

QuoteCould someone who's bored and has some time on their hands maybe put up a page or two of quotes from him where he defends his belief in god and the orthodox church?

Huh?  You want me to go get someone to dig up my old posts? Huh? Second why would I need to “defend my belief in God?” I have no desire to defend it. This may seem like a contradtiction because right now you'll see TheJackel and myself go back and forth on the very "existence" of God, the discussion deeply intrigues me (from a scientific response rather than a philosophical one he asserts). However I guess I should be past the point where I need to defend what I say or believe, or think or feel to people I do not know.  It's just not of interest to me to “defend” myself. Like Bob Price, I'll defend the Bible if I feel it is being used unfairely as a whipping boy by some skeptic, but I'm not defending religion, or my faith, or God. I just do not care. If there is a God he doesn't need me defending him.

QuoteIt should be obvious that we focus on the bible because it's relevant in our time, when was the last time you met a follower of zoroastrianism? they don't need to be debunked because they're not the ones knocking on doors, shoving bibles in faces, protesting at abortion clinics, or trying to run for public office so they can legislate their morality.

With the exception of Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA, where and when has the Orthodox Church been shoving bibles and “Christian morality” in people's faces? You're lumping all followers of Christianity into one giant pot, not distinguishing one group from another. Look I too am sick and tired of the Christian right bible thumping, trying to legislate against gay marriage, and all the rest; but do you really think that coming to an Orthodox Christian, a Church which has almost nothing to do with American politics (save for the few Greeks who want Greek Independence day to be an AMERICAN holiday (absurd, I know...LOL!) and then to argue “Christianity” in such broad generalities as you have is the best way of stopping Sarah Palin or some Tea Partiers from taking over the country? I just don't see it.

QuoteFarscape fan?

Haha it's one of my favorite sci-fi shows of all time!

Quote from: "Gawen"The aforementioned authors are pretty much apologists each with their own spin. Some agree with the others, some don't. I won't go into all of them, but here's a couple

Uhhh, you  think Raymond Brown, Margaret Barker and Raphael Patai are apologists? Holy Moley!! I just can't say anything more about that. Wow!!!! No offense, have you even READ these people? If you think these people are apologists then I think our conversation is over because, OMG...that's like like claiming Bob Jones is an apologist for the Catholic Church....outrageous!

QuoteMargaret Barker - a Methodist minister. Developer of Temple Theology, an example - When a man enters the Holy of the Holies it becomes a mystical experience that transforms the man into an angel. This idea is allegedly related to the Resurrection. No bias here.

You are aware that people are capable of talking about religious beliefs, studying them, and expressing what the people believed about their own religious experience and yet not actually believing it themselves, right? Anthropologists do it all the time! You don't really believe they too believe it when they expound upon the religious beliefs of some African tribe, do you? I sure hope not.

And besides, what does the fact that Barker is a minister have to do with anything? Are you saying only atheists can be real biblical scholars? If that's the case then why are so many atheists so utterly ignorant of the Bible to begin with? (yeah they might know more than the pew potatoes, but they no nothing compared to people like Barker)

Are you dismissive of her scholarly work based on it's weaknesses, or because she is a Methodist?

She also says the Old Testament is full of polytheism and goes to great lengths to prove this, do you think this means she must be a polytheist too? Man, if you think Barker is an apologist, then you must think Crossan is an orthodox Christian.

QuoteIt's always easy after the Jesus mythicist destroys a certain argument for historicity to say certain arguments aren't the best arguments for a historical Jesus. When scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan (Crossan claims the resurrection did not literally occur) wave a dismissive hand and declare it's not necessary to take those arguments out of the closet, maybe all that closet contains are the emperor's old clothes. In my opinion this is liberal apologetics that seem to say we are so lucky when we read Paul critically he's actually a feminist and environmentalist. And by the way, Jesus was actually a liberal.

I see you're trying to channel Price's argument that even the Jesus seminar fellows are “apologists”, but your'e doing a poor job of it actually because you're taking him out of context. While Price and Doughty and others certainly are mythicists, they do not “believe” Jesus was a myth. I'm sorry, those are his own words, just listen to his Jan 3rd podcast. (maybe the 2nd?) In some sense Price is correct, Crossan and others are “apologists” for a historical Jesus who just happens to be exactly what they want him to be. Um,  Schweitzer said the same thing long ago. However which subject are we discussing here? Are we discussing the Bible or the historical Jesus? You seem to want to change subjects, which is fine but be honest about what you're doing. Crossan, Borg and some of these guys are “apologists” for a Jesus that looks like their reflection, but they are NOT religious apologists, and if you think they are then just go ask a Fundamentalist Christian what they think of Crossan. (or ask the Pope)  Crossan's scholarship is so brilliant that Price even once said, “compared to Crossan I can barely write my own name!” You're being dismissive of some of these guys and gals because you don't like that they hold to some sort of theistic belief, but what do you do with Raymond Brown then? A Catholic, in good standing but who obliterated the Virgin birth stories and the showed how the Gospel of John was formed in layers upon layers and filled with Gnostic, docetic and paged together from various sources. For crying out loud his work lead to his student writing a book “the Illigetimacy of Jesus”...I suppose you reject his work to then, huh? Funny, Price, Avalos and Carrier don't. Are you more qualified than they are?

One needs to judge one's scholarship and Biblical criticism based on the work alone, not based on the person's personal philosophy. Do you reject brown's work because he still was a faithful Catholic in good standing? If you do you're not being a very good “rationalist” at all but are allowing emotions to determine what you see as true and untrue and what you will and will allow into your paradigm. Interesting.

QuoteCrossan and Richard Horsley, among others, assert that Jesus led a covenant renewal movement. Crossan is the most prominent exponent of a noneschatological Jesus today. In 1973 he wrote that the scholarly consensus that Jesus' message was "apocalyptic eschatology" had become "extremely problematic."- The Continuum history of apocalypticism
It amazes me that all of them have two things in common. Jesus was real and they are satisfied to rewrite history that doesn't exist.

I'm not familiar with Horsley at all. But you have Crossan's work caricaturized as you seem to do with Christianity in general. You do realize there is 150 year old debate on whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet or not, right? This is not new, it is not something Crossan invented, though he did do new work in showing how the question should be raised again. (after it's acceptance for a generation)

You seem so dismissive of everyone who's not a mythicist but how familiar are you with their work I wonder? Realized exchatology is not something Crossan invented...it is something Canonical Luke invented. (it could go back even further, it just depends on how late you date Luke, or Ur Lukas) Crossan's (and others) idea that the original Q source was essentially a group of Cynic sayings, and that Jesus was probably a Gallilean styled Cynic is probably correct. Burton Mack also says the same thing. Price also agrees that Crossan is probably right about the Cynic=Q community thing, though Price feels Q only gets us to the original Q community and not back to Jesus himself. (good point, however Crossan and others raise equally good points) You write as if the Christ myth theory is a slam dunk and that all other scholars are undergoing a conspiracy to cover it up....Price, Doughty and the other mythicists have claimed NO SUCH THING. However if you're reading some of these “Christ myth” websites put up by laymen, the ones who invent pagan parrallels to Christ, like Krishna being “born of a virgin, visited by wise men, being crucified etc” then yeah, you might get the impression it's a slam dunk. It isn't. None of the real scholars say it is, and they never said that. GA Wells even back peddled and said there probably was an “historical Jesus” though there is NO WAY we can know anything about the guy. (That's what Bultmaan said as well) That there was  man, who was kernel of truth that everything else got built up around. I think this makes the best sense of the evidence, but I admit I could be wrong. Jesus may never have existed. I admit, Price and the others have some fantastic points. Especially the issues in “paul's” letters which talk in purely mythological terms. Very interesting points. I also find one point about Jesus on the cross quite convincing, when the “sun went dark” and Jesus cried Eloi Eloi La ma Sabathani”...a recent book suggests this is from a paganized telling where Jesus was actually crying “Helios Helios why have you forsaken me” just as the sun is going dark.

Wow! That is an awesome point. Yet, it says nothing about whether a historical Jesus existed or didn't. It could be, but it is not as certain as you believe though, nor do any of the Christ myth theorists say it is. They just feel they have the best arguments, but then so does everyone else. In the end agnosticism on the issue is the best we can come up with at the moment.

QuoteRobert Price, however, already resides in my library.

Maybe you need to do as Dr. Price suggests to everyone and that is to read EVERYTHING even the stuff you disagree with and try to see that their arguments are also valid. Having Price, but not Crossan, Mack, Brown, Strauss, Baeur, and Barker in your library is way too self limiting IMO. The reason I even mentioned Ehrman and Armstrong is because you yourself on the boards complained that you had studied the bible for years and still none of it made any sense. I therefore assumed you have never read anything from any scholars at all. (I failed to see how after reading Ehrman you'd still be utterly confused as you claimed to be about the Bible) Reading Ehrman, Armstrong, and some others is a good way for the bible to begin to make sense. Crossan and Barker are scholars writing for scholars but still appeal to non scholars at times. (though Crossan's biggest weakness is it takes him 70 pages to say something, then again he is trying to make a scholarly point and not writing for the masses per se) Barker, Price, Doughty, Brown etc are heavy duty yet you seem to reject all except the ones you already agree with. Kind of like a Christian who won't read about other religions because they already have the right one. (uh, then why not read about them, what are they afraid of?)  I also cannot understand how after reading Price you can still be confused about the Bible? Or were you just trying to bait some of the more Fundie posters?

Two weeks or so ago, I joined this forum with a relatively open mind but sitting on a 6 on Dawkin's scale. I held onto an Agnostic stance that you can't prove gods one way or another.

After reading this discussion between Achronos and TheJackel I am now a 7 on Dawkin's scale with regards to Achronos' Christian God. I would be keen to know if the authoritative source with regards to Christianity deem that God lives outside of existence and is responsible for the creation of existence. If this is the case then I would be unquestionable 7 towards Christianity as a whole.

I'd be willing to bet Christ hasn't destroyed anything.

Good grief...

I concede. Achronos is right. Logical fallacies, self-contradictions and contradictions elsewhere, Christian writers that write about Christianity aren't apologists, belief in something (superstition) not seen or heard through faith and hope, moving the goalposts and changing definitions to suit one's beliefs is the correct world view.
I have nothing further to add.

Quote from: "Gawen"Good grief...

I concede. Achronos is right. Logical fallacies, self-contradictions and contradictions elsewhere, Christian writers that write about Christianity aren't apologists, belief in something (superstition) not seen or heard through faith and hope, moving the goalposts and changing definitions to suit one's beliefs is the correct world view.
I have nothing further to add.

Well, it's too bad you don't want to have a real dialogue and possibly learn from each other; Its very odd to hear an atheist admit they won't read someone because they don't like that person's personal philosophy. Rejecting ideas and scholarship, especially historical scholarship on the basis of the scholar's worldview and not on the scholarship itself is very odd indeed. Not very rational.

BTW I would really love for you write to Bob Price and argue to him that Margaret Barker is a "Christian apologist" and that you reject her work based on the fact that she is a Methodist; I would actually pay money to hear his response to that poor reason. I suspect you've never read her, nor Strauss, nor Schweitzer, nor Crossan, or Brown, Bauer, or anyone else who isn't writing about what you already believe. I doubt you even have an idea who most of these people even are. Which is exactly what Fundamentalists do as well. Very interesting. I've read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Doherty, Price, Wells, NT Wright, studied the Old and New Testaments, Judaism, Hinduism a bit, am just now reading more about Buddhism, the majoirty of religions (beginning unto the obscure ones)...I read Sagan, Tillich, the Pope, Tolkien, and tons of others...pagan, neo-pagan, and everything in between. I read everybody and then try to make up my own mind. I do not fear reading these people, I once did, I understand that feeling. Maybe when you get more comfortable with the idea that you will never have the "truth" all figured out, and that you and I are but tiny specks in the cosmos, you'll become more comfortable with reading scholars and authors who have a different world view without the fear that by reading them you might get sucked in and accidently convert or something. Of course you should be open to being convinced that their arguments might convince you actually. If you enter a debate or begin reading a book and tell yourself "nothing I read here will change my mind!", what would be the point? Price has changed my mind on a great many things, as have EP Sanders, Helmut Koester, even Crossan. We should be open to new things and not be married to any one concept or idealogy. What ever your reason for rejecting people you've never read, it doesn't matter to me; if it works for you and your life makes sense, then that's cool. I will say no more. You wish to end our discussion and that's fine.

Hopefully you can find whatever it is you're looking for in life; good luck.