Open Discussion With Lnc

[Abiyoyo]

This site is called Ex'Christian". That should be a pretty good heads up that most of us know a thing or two about the Bible.

 

Why don't you ask Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds foremost biblical scholars, what happened to him when he read the Bible.

 

Why would the name exChristian make me think that you have read the whole Bible. As I said before, I know many people who currently consider themselves Christians who have not read through the whole Bible. That being the case, I wouldn't assume that someone who calls himself an exChristian would necessarily have either. That would be like assuming that just because someone is an American that they have read the constitution all the way through.

 

Hey, LNC. I'm not sure if anyone else agrees with this or not. But, I think you need to address the issues shantonu has brought up before you reply to anything else, because I don't think your gonna get anywhere here.

[Justin]

You've got a lot going on here and it is a bit off topic for most of what we have been discussing here, but let me give it a shot.

 

LNC, this thread is called "Open Discussions with LNC". Open meaning anything can be discussed. So i don't see how i am a bit off topic, especially seeing as me and you were discussing these very things earlier.

 

Here are just a few differences that show the Bible ( to be a plausible account while Gilgamesh (G) is not:

 

WOW... Look, there are differences, but the similarities far outweigh them. Nobody can deny this. Furthermore, you were talking about the Genesis account being older, which is what you asked me in your last post to me. How come you changed tactics and aren't focusing on which came first now? Same goes for the creation accounts.

 

LNC, i saw a unicorn flying outside my window just now, should i go out and catch it? Which brings me to the topic of monsters, which i forgot in my last post. What do you make of Behemoth, the fire breathing and armor clad Leviathan and the Fiery Flying Serpents?

 

There is too much to go through this article point by point; however, I think that the author either purposefully or by ignorance, takes poetic writing style and tries to turn it into a science text. That is just sloppy hermeneutic and doesn't really bear much more commentary on my part. It is not much different than taking the passages that speak of the God's "righteous right arm" and trying to prove that the text was teaching that God had a body. It says more about the author of the article than it does about the Bible.

 

Metephor or not, the writers of the Bible clearly thought as everyone did in those times, that the earth is flat, covered in a solid, sky dome and that the sun revolved around the earth. Yes, some were metephorical, but others were not. In Revelations when it talks about the dragon's tail reaching up and knocking the stars loose and down to the earth, that is clearly metephorical, yet it does show how the ancients thought the stars were only just tiny little lights right over our heads, etched into the sky dome firmament. They clearly did not believe that stars were millions of light years away and could never fall to earth for they are many, many times larger than the earth.

 

As for that link, i have yet to come across a more sound and thorough laying out of the Bible's geocentric flat earth evidence than what is on that site. You didn't even read all of it i bet. You didn't like what it said and so you bash the author and say he doesn't know what a metaphor is. Wow, soundly refuted LNC.

 

The problem with your Isaiah interpretation is that the LXX (Septuagint) translates the word from the Hebrew to the Greek as "virgin." The LXX was translated by Jewish scholars before between the 3rd and 1st century B.C., so the NT interpretation is consistent with the LXX. The word can be translated either way, however, as is true in translation, context is key, which is why the LXX translators chose the word virgin. As for the use of Immanuel, how can you say that it is never used for Jesus when it is used in Matthew, the very passage that you are disputing. As for today, we just came through the Christmas season where we have many hymns, carols, and contemporary Christmas songs that refer to Jesus as Immanuel.

 

He was not called Immanuel but once. Everywhere else refers to him as Jesus. The passage in Isaiah states that he will be called Immanuel, and nothing about Jesus, which implies that is to be his name, not Jesus. What does people singing Christmas songs have to do with anything? Tell me something LNC, do you or anyone you know go around refering to Jesus as Immanuel aside from a few songs at Christmas time? Didn't think so.

 

As for you still insisting that "virgin" is still in there. Provide a link or something for once.

 

"Isaiah's prophecy was that the child Immanuel was to have been born in 742 BCE, the first year of King Ahaz's reign. Ahaz, the king of Judah, faced the combined armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah explained to Ahaz that he should not form an alliance with Assyria. In support of this advice, God would provide a sign: a young woman would conceive and bear a child who would be named Immanuel. 2 The sign would have only have been effective if it happened almost immediately. It would not have convinced King Ahaz that Isaiah's prophecy was valid if it was not fulfilled until after King Ahaz' death!

Isaiah was clearly not referring to some event that would occur centuries later. When he referred to the far future, as in Chapter 11, he typically used a phrase such as "In that day."

The translation of the Hebrew name Immanuel, (Greek Emmanouel) as "God with us" in Matthew 1:23 implies that the name-holder is divine. The name really means "God is with us," meaning that God will support us. The name makes perfect sense if the child's name was to indicate to King Ahaz that God is on their side.

Luke 1 states that Mary would call her son Yeshua (Jesus in Greek). He is called Yeshua throughout the Christian Scriptures -- not Immanuel."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_proi.htm

 

Now, as for your comments on whether the God of the Bible is a worldwide God, I had this conversation recently with some Baha'is. The Abrahamic Covenant says that through him all the nations will be blessed. The book of Revelation says that every tongue, tribe, and nation will bless Jesus. I don't see the significance of the fact that for much of history God chose to work through one people group, that is not pertinent to his plan to bless all peoples, and today we see that happening.

 

The same is said about Islam and Allah LNC. So whats your point? It would be far more effective for a god to spread his word and what he wants done by appearing and speaking to all the people in the world. That fact that he just helped Israel out should indicate, as i have already told you, that it he was made up by them. i have no clue why you cannot see this.

 

In regard to your admonition that I step outside of my "little circle," first of all, you don't know how big or small my circle is, but it is obviously big enough to be encompassing the people in this site, so it is larger than I think you give me credit. I actually meet with a group including Muslims, Baha'is, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and other world religions every week on my local college campus. So, the fact is, my circle is pretty large. How about you?

 

You a student or teacher there?

[shantonu]

This site is called Ex'Christian". That should be a pretty good heads up that most of us know a thing or two about the Bible.

 

Why don't you ask Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds foremost biblical scholars, what happened to him when he read the Bible.

 

Why would the name exChristian make me think that you have read the whole Bible. As I said before, I know many people who currently consider themselves Christians who have not read through the whole Bible. That being the case, I wouldn't assume that someone who calls himself an exChristian would necessarily have either. That would be like assuming that just because someone is an American that they have read the constitution all the way through.

 

Hey, LNC. I'm not sure if anyone else agrees with this or not. But, I think you need to address the issues shantonu has brought up before you reply to anything else, because I don't think your gonna get anywhere here.

 

Thanks YoYo. I think you've laid it out for him. It's up to him to respond. I think he's a discredit to Christians,like yourself who are really trying to think things out in an honest manner. Anyone can copy something off the internet and sound smart. It takes quite another type of person to look at the issues directly. You and I may not always agree, but I respect your courage.

[Justin]

This site is called Ex'Christian". That should be a pretty good heads up that most of us know a thing or two about the Bible.

 

Why don't you ask Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds foremost biblical scholars, what happened to him when he read the Bible.

 

Why would the name exChristian make me think that you have read the whole Bible. As I said before, I know many people who currently consider themselves Christians who have not read through the whole Bible. That being the case, I wouldn't assume that someone who calls himself an exChristian would necessarily have either. That would be like assuming that just because someone is an American that they have read the constitution all the way through.

 

What happened to Bart Ehrman was not as a result of reading the Bible, otherwise it would have happened much sooner, like when he was at Wheaton College. However, it wasn't until he did his grad work at a much more liberal institution that he left the faith. But, if reading the Bible alone would cause someone to abandon the faith, then I should have long ago as I have read through the Bible many times. It is funny that one of the foremost scholars and philosophers, William Lane Craig went to Wheaton College the same time that Ehrman did and Craig is a solid defender of the Scriptures. He even debated Ehrman a number of years ago. I would encourage you to listen to the debate, it is enlightening.

 

I'm not saying you should expect us all to have read the Bible because we are ex-christians, just that we known far more than what the typical christian thinks their stereotypical atheist knows. Someone has a quote on here that says "The Bible, the best selling, least read book of all time". That is the truth. I guarentee you that if more christians picked up their Bibles, there would be more turning away from the faith. Most just stick with the traditional stories and open them up on sunday morning according to what the preacher preaches on, which again is the same old traditional crap. Nothing is ever preached about how Elijah sent bears to rip apart kids or how Jephthah sacraficed his daughter to god for victory in a battle, or the mountain of foreskins, or how a woman is to be killed for aiding her husband in a fight by grabbing the other man's testicles, or how a man was killed for shooting his semen onto the ground and not into his brothers wife, or the depictions of oral sex in Song of Soloman, or how the Israelites went to a neighboring settlement to steal some of their women as they came out to dance because they didn't capture enough women in the first place when they invaded and conquered a previous settlement. You know, jolly good things like this.

 

Read Ehrman's introduction in his book 'Misquoting Jesus'. It is all there in black and white. He had doubts for a while before he left it completly behind while at the Moody Bible Institute, i think it was.

[shantonu]

I'm not saying you should expect us all to have read the Bible because we are ex-christians, just that we known far more than what the typical christian thinks their stereotypical atheist knows. Someone has a quote on here that says "The Bible, the best selling, least read book of all time". That is the truth. I guarentee you that if more christians picked up their Bibles, there would be more turning away from the faith. Most just stick with the traditional stories and open them up on sunday morning according to what the preacher preaches on, which again is the same old traditional crap. Nothing is ever preached about how Elijah sent bears to rip apart kids or how Jephthah sacraficed his daughter to god for victory in a battle, or the mountain of foreskins, or how a woman is to be killed for aiding her husband in a fight by grabbing the other man's testicles, or how a man was killed for shooting his semen onto the ground and not into his brothers wife, or the depictions of oral sex in Song of Soloman, or how the Israelites went to a neighboring settlement to steal some of their women as they came out to dance because they didn't capture enough women in the first place when they invaded and conquered a previous settlement. You know, jolly good things like this.

 

I'm one of those. I became an atheist soley on my reading of the Bible. I then had my atheism confirmed by reading Spong's book on how the Christianity must change or die. I don't hate Jesus or anything. I still consider myself a "Christian" of a certain sort, though at best I'm a heretic among heretics. I can't understand math or science. I don't pretend to understand evolution or astrophysics or anything like that. However, I do know that the second-class status of women and gay people is just plain dumb, and I can't imagine that a transcendent God would have rules that reenforced such repugnant traditions.

[chefranden]

Why would the name exChristian make me think that you have read the whole Bible. As I said before, I know many people who currently consider themselves Christians who have not read through the whole Bible. That being the case, I wouldn't assume that someone who calls himself an exChristian would necessarily have either. That would be like assuming that just because someone is an American that they have read the constitution all the way through.

 

I estimate that I've read it 40+ times in various English translations. In addition my undergrad degree was in bible language (graduated 2nd in my class), so I've read it in Greek and Hebrew as well. The 40 times doesn't count studying for classes, sermons, bible studies, articles and the like. I made it my habit to read it twice a year for 20 years, but I also read it as a kid. Nobody could beat me at Bible Trivia including Dr Zorn my Hebrew professor. Little did I know that it would all turn out to be trivia.

 

I find that as a general rule the members of Ex-Christian are more well read in scripture than most Christians that stop by to rant. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are one of the majority of Christians who have never read it outside passages read in bible study or heard from the pulpit. Ignorance of the bible was one of my pet peeves as a pastor, though now I see that the ignorance was a major bit of glue that kept the flock together.

 

That which cast the most doubt on my faith from scripture was the comparison of Ezekiel 18, Matthew 25:31-46, and James 2 with Paul. Other contradictions didn't bother me much, but the contradiction between Ezekiel, Paul, and John's Jesus did. However, I didn't leave the faith because of this. In fact I didn't leave the faith at all. The faith left me -- with me crying and grasping at its remainders 'til one day I awoke and knew it was gone. It was only after that I began to see how I'd been duping myself and others over the years.

 

Nevertheless, I understand that you might think that we are ignorant of scripture and dogma, because you can't imagine that anyone that knew it would reject it. Your imagination deficiency is probably the reason you mostly come across as a self-righteous prick.

 

I suspect that everyone that is following your thread sees that you are an ignorant brick mostly because we've been there and done that. That is we don't need imagination to put ourselves in your shoes. You of course can't imagine your ignorance either. After all you are full of the Holy Spirit, right? Unfortunately that comes across here as being full of Holy Shit. Not that that is bad, mind you. Holy Shit must be good by definition.

[florduh]

Not that it would mean much to someone without an original thought of his own, I want to add myself to the numbers who gave up on Christianity because of Bible study. I read and prayed. I went to my pastor, then Moody, and investigated every other source I could find to help me understand the book.

 

Finally, I did.

[mwc]

Holy Shit must be good by definition.

Ha! In my world Holy Shit is usually something unexpected and exciting. After all, it's what I shout when I encounter it.

 

mwc

[shantonu]

Not that it would mean much to someone without an original thought of his own, I want to add myself to the numbers who gave up on Christianity because of Bible study. I read and prayed. I went to my pastor, then Moody, and investigated every other source I could find to help me understand the book.

 

Finally, I did.

 

I never know when something is irony, but this seems like irony to me. Well said.

[Ouroboros]

Holy Shit must be good by definition.

Since Holy Shit exists, it must exist an absolute Holy Shit. Relative Holy Shit is impossible. The first cause must be The Holy Shitter.

[agnosticator]

Not that it would mean much to someone without an original thought of his own, I want to add myself to the numbers who gave up on Christianity because of Bible study. I read and prayed. I went to my pastor, then Moody, and investigated every other source I could find to help me understand the book.

 

Finally, I did.

So let's take a poll for LNC, the cutter and plasterer of apologetics. How many read the bible and how many times? I myself read it in its' entirety 7 times, as 7 is god's perfect number . I would have saved myself alot of grief had I read it more carefully the first time and listened to my gut.

[Ouroboros]

... and listened to my gut.

It was the Holy Spirit telling you, "Don't read this shit!"

[agnosticator]

... and listened to my gut.

It was the Holy Spirit telling you, "Don't read this shit!"

 

OOuhoh!!! Then I shouldn't have blasphemed the holy shi..spirit!

[Ouroboros]

OOuhoh!!! Then I shouldn't have blasphemed the holy shi..spirit!

Believe and he will wipe... oh, that's a very bad joke.

[agnosticator]

Though it's still funny

[Abiyoyo]

though now I see that the ignorance was a major bit of glue that kept the flock together.

 

Very true.

[LNC]

Why shouldn't it matter that it is a product of a certain time period. Do we read all books of antiquity through the lenses of our times or do we try to understand them in the context of their time. I think it is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret works of antiquity from our perspective. It is called having a chronological bias. I don't know what you mean when you claim that I am asserting that "the Bible is what it is and nothing more." I don't claim such since I don't know what that means. I claim that it is inerrant in its original autographs and that it is inspired. Now, I will ask you on what basis you bring these charges? Are these charges brought from your subjective moral system or do you base them on an objective moral system, and if so, on what do you base your system? I ask this as many on this site bring these charges, yet I want to know that they are real charges and not just your own opinions or preferences. So, please inform me.

 

It is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret ancient writings from our modern perspective. But we are not talking about just any ancient writing, we are talking about the Holy Bible, breathed to man by god almighty himself. That makes all the difference in the world. Ask yourself this, if every word was truelly from god and not man, would we have the barbarisim and slavery, sexisim and all that rubbish? If you are saying it still would, and you continue to worship this type of god, then i doubt very seriously that i want to continue debating with you.

 

Furthermore, why do you believe we should interpret the Bible as a product of its time when it comes to things like barbarisim and slavery but take the opposite approach when it comes to the Bible writers cosmology, their limited knowledge when it came to the earth, the stars, sun and the moon?

 

As i have told you before, i ground my moral system in what i think is right and wrong, the general standard that all humanity has/developed.

 

I would agree with your opening statement here. I find that people are filtering the Bible through their 21st century filters all the time, especially on this site, and it leads to errors in understanding and interpretation. Now, because the Bible reports the sinfulness of man, why do you consider it to be less reliable? My local newspaper has been reporting a lot about corruption in our state as our Governor was recently impeached and removed from office. By reporting the corruption the paper is not endorsing the corruption. The same could be said of the Bible, by reporting this behavior, it doesn't mean that the Bible or God are endorsing these behaviors.

 

Now, I have to get back to my original point to you and everyone else on this site. You speak of barbarism, slavery, sexism, however, you haven't told me why these are any more than actions that you dislike. In other words, if you believe that these behaviors are really wrong then tell me on what basis you judge them such. Or, are you merely judging the Bible and God on your subjective standard?

[shantonu]

Now, I have to get back to my original point to you and everyone else on this site. You speak of barbarism, slavery, sexism, however, you haven't told me why these are any more than actions that you dislike. In other words, if you believe that these behaviors are really wrong then tell me on what basis you judge them such. Or, are you merely judging the Bible and God on your subjective standard?

 

Man, this guy is still at it. LNC: don't you realize that no one is listening to you anymore? If we want to know what you "think" we'll just go to your "brain" and examine your "brain" for ourselves. It's right here: http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

 

Did you not read my explanation why the subjective/objective distinction is not applicable in this context? Your brain hasn't been updated in a while, whicih is why you sound so much like a broken record. Here, do us all a favor and contact your "brain" by emailing truthnet@yahoo.com and ask them to update their website. Then get back to us when you've had a chance to "think."

[LNC]

And there is nothing irredemably "subjective" about that.

 

The two senses of the word 'objective' make for confusion. Mankind is responsibe for the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Laws. Both are objective laws. They weren't arbitary, they weren't subjective. So they are both objective in that sense.

 

Most people think the Nuremberg Laws were evil, while the other hand most people think the Geneva Convention to be good. But are they? Is this judgment correct? Perhaps the Nuremberg laws really were not bad. Perhaps the Geneva Convention is really unjust. We, today, think the opposite. But we might be wrong, or we might change our minds. Without objective standards, how do we really know? We might as well not have a conversation unless we first establish truly objective and timeless standards by which we will measure the question.

 

Right?

 

Wrong! This entire line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. There are two reasons why:

 

First: Of course we might change our minds. But that's always a problem with every endeavor into human thinking. If we were looking for something permanent in these affairs, we should just quit before we get started. But then we would be no closer to any understanding whatsoever.

 

Let's take a practical example to make this point clear: Shakespeare was not always considered a great writer. His contemporaries did not think him very special. Shortly after his death, most people did not recognize his genius. in the 19th Century, critics, esp. Coleridge, basically established Shakespeare's now towering reputation.

 

Well, just because there is no "objective" standard in the big sense, does that make it all subjective--and therefore not worth talking about it? Of course not. It's by talking about it that people develop a common understanding and begin to make educated judgments about things. That's the whole function of literary criticism. Those people in the Ivory Tower do quite a lot of bullshitting, but that does not make the entire process bullshit.

 

Second: what does LNC propose we do other than talk to each other? Let's say we want to find out whether the Geneva Convention is good or not. According to him, the only way to do that is to . . . . I don't know. Ask God? The quesiton will always come down to non-objective (in the big sense) arguments. So what? That's how everything works.

 

So for these two reasons--that ( a ) we can make progress towards understanding without "Objective" standards and ( b ) there is no other way to make progress--LNC's entire line of argument is exposed for the illusion and lame excuse it always was.

 

Thanks for that explanation, it makes my point exactly. The Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg laws were subjective according to the definition that I am using as they were derived by man to apply to man. The rest of your explanation goes on to explain the very problem with subjective standards, they change.

 

Now, I find it interesting that you would say that just because there is no objective standard in the "big sense" (whatever that means) wouldn't mean that something would be subjective. Would it mean that it is objective in the "small sense"? And, what would that mean? Just because people discuss and get a common understanding, doesn't give something the force of objectivity, it merely means that people may commonly agree to accept the subjective. But, we can't make the mistake of believing that these are any more than man-made standards based upon finite understanding and promissory agreement. We are still down to man's opinion, nonetheless.

[LNC]

Why does it matter? It matters for the very reason I'm even in this:

"Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes."

These are your very words. And, as part of your argument, it makes no different when the edicts were given. It would be impossible for your god to issue anything different. While I think most, if not all, of us would normally agree that the bible is nothing more than just another "[book] of antiquity" in this case we're willing to make exception. We're willing to see it as "moral code." And the type of being you describe would not alter its code subjectively over time.

 

mwc

 

Right, it is we who subjectively interpret it through our chronologically biased lenses, if we are not careful. That was my point.

[Legion]

The rest of your explanation goes on to explain the very problem with subjective standards, they change.

The way I see it, everything changes. Everything.

 

I can't think of anything which does not change.

[LNC]

That's what I hope I would do as well.

 

I wish LNC would stop playing games and just let us know what he thinks.

 

I have told you that I would as soon as you give me the basis or your complaint, in other words, by what moral basis. I am not playing a game here, I am as serious about this as you are about your complaint. I am not sure why you have such a hard time establishing a basis for this complaint since you seem very upset by it.

[Ouroboros]

I can't think of anything which does not change.

What doesn't change is that things change.

[LNC]

Morality is about how we treat each other within relationships-not just thinking about it.

 

Who's to say animals' reasonings don't include a form of "oughtness"? Humans are different than animals moreso in a matter of DEGREE, than type. Our brains didn't come from a separate alien being, or a god, but from life on earth. Just because we can't "read their minds" doesn't mean they can't possess some degree of "oughtness" in their reasoning.

 

Morality is about more than just behaviors, but is driven by motivations. It is those motivations that we cannot read in animals, and since we cannot communicate intelligently with them, we cannot know what motivated certain behaviors. We can only assume. Your question indicates this very idea. It is not that they don't possess this oughtness, just that we don't know and assuming that they do is not science, it is, well...assumption.

[shantonu]

Thanks for that explanation, it makes my point exactly. The Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg laws were subjective according to the definition that I am using as they were derived by man to apply to man. The rest of your explanation goes on to explain the very problem with subjective standards, they change.

 

Now, I find it interesting that you would say that just because there is no objective standard in the "big sense" (whatever that means) wouldn't mean that something would be subjective. Would it mean that it is objective in the "small sense"? And, what would that mean? Just because people discuss and get a common understanding, doesn't give something the force of objectivity, it merely means that people may commonly agree to accept the subjective. But, we can't make the mistake of believing that these are any more than man-made standards based upon finite understanding and promissory agreement. We are still down to man's opinion, nonetheless.

 

So they change. So what? Just because something changes, does that make it bad? We used to have a good theory of gravity (Newton's) now we have a better one (Einstein's). We may have a better one still. Does that make either Newton's or Einstein's theory bad?

 

Objective in the small sense just means "not-up-to-someone's-personal-whims". You say, "Just because people discuss and get a common understanding, doesn't give something the force of objectivity, it merely means that people may commonly agree to accept the subjective."

 

Why doesn't common agreement give something the force of objectivity, at least for the time being, sufficient to get the conversation going? To put this in philosophical terms, what's wrong with pragmatism? There's no other way to go but pragmatism because all you have is a claim to big Objectivity, you don't really have it and can't really get it. None of us can. But so what? We have is the conversation, history, and rhetoric. That's enough to get the discussion going.

 

So the fact that I don't claim to know "Objectively" that killing children is wrong, that doesn't let you off the hook from answering whether you would obey God's order 1 Samuel 15:3. This is because I'm not merely expressing my subjective, unsubstantiated opinion that killing children is wrong--I'm giving you what most of us have collectively agreed upon as a criterion of good conduct: don't intentionally kill children and babies in times of war even the children of your enemies. You can't delay answering 1 Samuel 15:3 question on the basis that I don't have an Objective means of posing the question. After all, I've already asked the question. This isn't like like whether I prefer coffee and you prefer tea. It's more like I'm using Newtonian mechanics and you're using Arostotelian mechanics. The fact that Newtownian mechanics weren't "Objectively" true did not rob the Newtonian critique of its power.

 

I'm willing to give you another shot at addressing these points. Just don't refer to the internet and let us all down again. If you must use the internet, give us the website address so we can see what your souce is.