Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

You are going to have to point out where I said that, since I know I didn't because I know it is not the case. What I may have said is that certain accounts are accepted as credible by a majority of the NT scholars, but I know that the whole of the NT is not.

But you just say yourself a few posts down this page of the thread that no scholar considers the bible to be fiction, so you've already contradicted your denial that you did not say the majority of scholars think the bible is historically accurate and you are a liar.

 

So, again, if you have evidence that I said this, please produce it. I don't say that there is no evidence since it is evidence in and of itself.

Here you go

Still, scholars don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction, even skeptical ones.

 

I said that certain passages don't have any outside or corraborating evidence, but then, that doesn't mean that those passages are necessarily inaccurate representations either, just that they have no corroboration. When I say that the Gospels are historical accounts, I mean that they are written like history not like fable or myth. Does that mean on that basis that they are true history? Not just because they are written like history, but we have much corroboration of many parts of the NT and have no valid reason to think that they are false and that is the way that historical accounts are treated by historians. I don't accept your faulty dilemma. Just because one passage may not be corroborated doesn't mean that it is false, and even if one part were shown to be false, wouldn't mean that the whole would be automatically considered to be false or myth. You don't have a good grasp on literary styles or literary critical methodology to make such a claim.

Now you're lying again. You did too claim that the gospels have no mythology in them. If you admit some stories of the gospels are made up, then that is mythology. It'd be like if I said the myth of Paul Bunyan was historically accurate but you pointed out errors in the story that prevent it from being true. But then I turned around and said "Oh, I don't need that part of the story of Paul Bunyan to be true" and unless you prove that the rest of the Paul Bunyan myth is false, then that must mean it's true. Either Paul Bunyan is true or it's not. You can't have it both ways. And if you're making an extraordinary claim that a Jewish man was resurrected from the dead but admit that the other stories about the Jewish man are made up and there's no extra-biblical evidence that the story of the Jewish man being raised from the dead is true, then it most certainly does call into question the reliability of the gospel accounts. It'd be like if you had four eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a UFO at the same time and one of the eyewitnesses claimed they were abducted by the aliens, but then that story about the man being abducted later turned out to be made up, it would call into question the reliability of these four eyewitnesses if one of the witnesses made up a major part of their story. And your god frankly seems weak and limited if he can only raise one Jewish man from the dead but all those other Jews weren't really raised from the dead since you admit that story is made up. If I don't understand anything about literary critical methodology, then you don't understand anything about critical thinking. And if you have such proof that the resurrection of Jesus is real, why don't you email Bart D Ehrman and prove to him that it really happened? What are you so afraid of? The fact that you only want to harass non-professional atheists on an Internet forum but don't want to email a professional like Ehrman and convert him to Christianity is proof enough that you don't have any proof at all.

 

You don't understand my argument or even your argument. I am not trying to prove the Bible is true, I am using the Bible as a piece of evidence for the resurrection which is a separate issue from whether the Bible is true. However, that is a faulty claim that is often used by skeptics against Christians and shows a lack of proper logical thought. You prove your mistake in your next sentence when you say that using the Qur'an to prove that Islam is true is wrong. Here you didn't make the circular argument of using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true, you said to prove that Islam is true. And, one can validly try to use the Qur'an to try to prove that Islam is true without begging the question. However, it is not my job here to argue for or against Islam.

Ok then, so since you have no evidence that Muhammed was not visited by the angel Gabriel in a cave and since I don't use the other stories in the Koran to prove Muahammed was visited by Gabriel, then pointing out any contradictions in the Koran doesn't disprove that he was visited. And since you have no proof he wasn't visited by Gabriel and that you can use the propaganda of other religions to either prove or disprove their religions, then you fully admit that there's more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus then there is for the story that Gabriel visited Muhammed and Islam must be true! These are your words, not mine as you yourself said you can use the propaganda of a religion to prove the religion is true but you don't need all of the propaganda to be true in order for the religion to be true. I've also wondered why you haven't addressed the Southern Baptist Christian who was an archaeologist who proved the OT history was just mythology which you can't accuse of having an anti-supernatural bias.

 

For someone who seems to be so concerned about accuracy, you certainly drop your standards when it is you under the microscope. How is 145 people (BTW, as I said, not all are scholars, so I won't grant you that) a majority. What is the total sample size from which they are drawn. How many of the 145 are actual scholars in the field who are recently published in peer reviewed journals, currently studying and/or teaching in the field? I think your number will shrink significantly after a proper filter is applied. Wow, you are the one who is using new math - 145=200 - and you tell me that my math is bad!!? I would love to shop at your store.

But you're the one making the extraordinary claim that a Jewish man was raised from the dead, not me. So you're the one who should be providing the extraordinary evidence that this story is true, not me trying to prove a negative which is logically impossible. You yourself said that there are even skeptical scholars who believe the gospels are historically accurate, but so far the only scholar you've cited for your views is an archaeologist from a 100 years ago and some random Christian guy, and I hardly find that to be the majority view of scholars. So, where's your proof? We've been 21 pages in this thread and so far you have not presented any proof of your claims at all. All you've been doing has been bashing and harassing atheists.

 

 

Right, that is exactly what I said. Unfortunately, you need to study the evidence in order to properly judge it which you haven't done regarding the people involved with the Jesus Seminar.

So, where's your facts and evidence? I don't see them anywhere, do you?

 

 

 

Go back and reread what I actually wrote. I said to you to keep the insults coming as they show that you have no argument and instead hide behind the name-calling. Judging is not inherently wrong since you have done it throughout this post, it is being judgmental that is wrong and that is also what you have been doing in your name-calling escapade.

 

I also wonder why you keep reverting to this "you are not interested in what I have to say" claim as it is clearly false. What have I been doing all these weeks but reading and responding to what you have to say. How is it that you claim to be able to read my thoughts and intentions? I am not the one with hurt feelings, and as I said, keep using the names if that is all you have. However, I would have hoped that you could make more serious arguments so that we could have a more intelligent exchange. Maybe we can get back to that and drop this line of discussion.

How is it that you're able to read my thoughts to know that I really don't have any arguments? And it's rich that you start complaining when I insult your beliefs, then you turn around and call me unintelligent and stupid. I guess this must mean you don't have any arguments yourself if all you can do is call me unintelligent. What was that Jesus said about plucking the shard out of your own eye?

 

I have also been temporarily suspended for posting an argument, not a personal attack. Why are my ideas suddenly not mine just because I follow Jesus Christ? That doesn't logically follow.

Why does it seem like in every other post you make, you whine about the way you're treated if you deny that you think you're being persecuted? Are you a masochist? Do you masturbate to this sort of thing?

[mwc]

To steal from the wikipedia page on Historical Method (I highly recommend everyone involved in this discussion give this page a quick once over):

Synthesis: historical reasoning

 

Once individual pieces of information have been assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed and established by historical reasoning.

 

Argument to the best explanation

 

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:[10]

 

1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

3. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.

5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

 

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."[11]

 

Statistical inference

 

McCullagh states this form of argument as follows:[12]

1. There is probability (of the degree p1) that whatever is an A is a B.

2. It is probable (to the degree p2) that this is an A.

3. Therefore (relative to these premises) it is probable (to the degree p1 × p2) that this is a B.

 

McCullagh gives this example:[13]

 

1. In thousands of cases, the letters V.S.L.M. appearing at the end of a Latin inscription on a tombstone stand for Votum Solvit Libens Merito.

2. From all appearances the letters V.S.L.M. are on this tombstone at the end of a Latin inscription.

3. Therefore these letters on this tombstone stand for Votum Solvit Libens Merito.

 

This is a syllogism in probabilistic form, making use of a generalization formed by induction from numerous examples (as the first premise).

 

Argument from analogy

The structure of the argument is as follows:[14]

1. One thing (object, event, or state of affairs) has properties p1 . . . pn and pn + 1.

2. Another thing has properties p1 . . . pn.

3. So the latter has property pn + 1.

 

McCullagh says that an argument from analogy, if sound, is either a "covert statistical syllogism" or better expressed as an argument to the best explanation. It is a statistical syllogism when it is "established by a sufficient number and variety of instances of the generalization"; otherwise, the argument may be invalid because properties 1 through n are unrelated to property n + 1, unless property n + 1 is the best explanation of properties 1 through n. Analogy, therefore, is uncontroversial only when used to suggest hypotheses, not as a conclusive argument.

I can't see how, by any of these techniques, a person can reasonably state that anyone has ever came back from the dead (and, no, this isn't the only thing on historical methodology I've read but it is the most accessible for posting to the forum).

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

I can't see how, by any of these techniques, a person can reasonably state that anyone has ever came back from the dead (and, no, this isn't the only thing on historical methodology I've read but it is the most accessible for posting to the forum).

 

mwc

But it takes more faith to believe Jesus wasn't raised from the dead! But talking snakes and donkeys, now that's reasonable

[mwc]

But it takes more faith to believe Jesus wasn't raised from the dead!

More faith? I'll concede that. But it takes only takes the smallest, most insignificant, amount of reason to simply know that no one, ever, has come back to life. I guess you might say it takes the reason of a mustard seed to know people don't come back from the dead.

 

But talking snakes and donkeys, now that's reasonable

Well, yeah. They freakin' talk. They can tell you they talk. I even saw a talking donkey in Shrek I/II/III. What's not to believe there?

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

This is great. We're thinking and speaking in the same vein again. This is exactly what I said in a different way.

I posted mine before I read yours, and yes, we are of one mind. Holy Spirit perhaps?

[Antlerman]

This is great. We're thinking and speaking in the same vein again. This is exactly what I said in a different way.

I posted mine before I read yours, and yes, we are of one mind. Holy Spirit perhaps?

Yes, I know we weren't working off each other. That's why it was noteworthy. Sometimes... in my more mystical moments, I guardedly leap at some idea of some sort of Jungian synchronicity. There are moments... However, I just chalk up our finding ourselves in lock-step as a case of the old adage, "Great minds thinks alike".

 

Say... I'm taking off a couple days off work Monday and Tuesday for a 4 day weekend. Think I should take on LNC head-on? I just haven't had the time or energy these days with a major project at work. I'd like to brush the dust off my keyboard and apply half the energy others have been with him to see if I couldn't maybe accomplish something fruitful for him.

 

One has to ask, with all the effort he is making here... exactly who is he trying to convince? Us, or himself?

[mwc]

Oh, get a room you two...

 

 

 

 

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

One has to ask, with all the effort he is making here... exactly who is he trying to convince? Us, or himself?

Maybe he's trying to convince God that he exists? But I'm all for an AM vs LNC match if he'll actually respond to anything you post and stop dodging questions.

[Antlerman]

Oh, get a room you two...

 

 

 

 

 

mwc

I could use a good hot tub and back rub. Any takers? Kidding... I'm a eunuch. A True Believer™. It was at a tent revival. I was drunk in the Holy Spirit, with a pair of hedge shears in my hands, and an insane test from the Lord on high... Let's just say, I'm now free from fleshly desires.

[agnosticator]

Whoever said he's a troll is probably right. Otherwise, he's closer to insanity.

 

*Mriana raises hand* Er... That would be me. There might have been another person beside me, but I called him/her a troll among other things. (One of my Lwaxana Troi v Ferengi moments. )

 

You're naughty, Mriana. I like that in a woman!

[Ouroboros]

Say... I'm taking off a couple days off work Monday and Tuesday for a 4 day weekend. Think I should take on LNC head-on?

If you have the energy... I get so tired arguing with him. :

 

I just haven't had the time or energy these days with a major project at work. I'd like to brush the dust off my keyboard and apply half the energy others have been with him to see if I couldn't maybe accomplish something fruitful for him.

If you did it in the Arena, and beat the pulp out of one horse at the time, perhaps we at least could...

 

One has to ask, with all the effort he is making here... exactly who is he trying to convince? Us, or himself?

... get an answer to that question.

 

 

 

Oh, get a room you two...

Jealous?

 

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Wrongful punishment, by God, unto the Canaanites:

 

Did the Canaanites Practice Human Sacrifices?

 

It is often asked or even assumed that the Canaanites engaged in human sacrifice, particularly child sacrifice, but no evidence of adult or child human sacrifice has ever been uncovered in Ugarit.(1) Most scholars have reached a consensus that human and child sacrifice never occurred in Ugarit.(2) The Canaanite archaeological record is quiet on the issue.

 

Child sacrifice may have occurred in Phoenicia, Carthage, and occasionally in Iron Age Israel.(3)

 

1. Curtis, Adrian. Ugarit (Ras Shamra). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985, p. 94-5; Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia. 2002, p. 233.

2. Clemens, David M. Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice, Volume I: Ugarit and Ugarit Akkadian Texts. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster , Germany , 2001, p.54.

3. Dever, William. Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2005, p. Dever 217-8.

 

Source: http://canaanitepath.com/canaanfaq.htm#sacr

 

But there's a chance that the Iron Age Israel occasionally did sacrifice kids, but not the Canaanites in general. So was this a genocide instigated by a generalization and stereotyping of the people at that time? A couple of localized incidents during the rule of Israel were used to blame a whole culture? I can see politics, polemics, and propaganda hasn't changed much since. But it's even worse when God acts based on false labeling.

[agnosticator]

I just read Richard Carrier's article, and this quote encapsulates much of what I think about christian morals:

"...The good judge others by their character, not their beliefs, and punish deeds, not thoughts, and punish only to teach, not to torture..."

 

I wish I found his writing myself before...great stuff.

[Ouroboros]

Hans - I just got your meaning here. The letters themselves stand for "Logical Non-Contradiction". I thought you meant that LNC, the person we are chatting with, stands for logical non-contradiction, and I was confused since the evidence seemed conflicting. Now I see the glaring evidence.

Sorry! I know I can be confusing at times.

 

I find it so amusing that a person who constantly engage in conflicting arguments name himself "logically non-contradiction." It seems to be pathological with some people to boast themselves with symbols of their own imagined status and overuse the little knowledge and skill they have in the attempt to impress the audience. But they won't realize how it fails miserable when they aim for the wrong crowd. I'm sure LNC is well respected and held in high regards in his own circles, but he's probably confused why we won't fall to our knees, bow to his amazing knowledge and reasoning, and pray for God to take our hearts. He's not that impressive in this club, and I'm not sure he figured out "why" yet.

[Neon Genesis]

 

If you did it in the Arena, and beat the pulp out of one horse at the time, perhaps we at least could...

 

 

 

 

 

What happened to the arena debate between AM and Ray?

[Ouroboros]

If you did it in the Arena, and beat the pulp out of one horse at the time, perhaps we at least could...

What happened to the arena debate between AM and Ray?

I don't know. It kind of slowly dissipated.

 

 

Tough words. I guess that *I* get to judge "god?" If "god" found someone guilty then it should have punished them itself. No need to force any lacky to do the job. Floods and other destruction from above (see Genesis or Exodus) would be enough for the baby killers. A "god" doesn't need a human (or other) army...ever.

 

mwc

I agree with LNC that a "god" of any kind could and perhaps should be above moral judgment, however, if a God is above human morality, then it still wouldn't be appropriate of God to command humans to breach the morals they have to obey. If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong, regardless if God commands it or not. I can go as far as to say that God can act anyway he/she/it wants, but humans are still obligated to follow the "absolute morality" (if such exists). So who did wrong in this situation? Perhaps not God, except for giving inappropriate commands conflicting with his own absolute dicta, but definitely the believers who obediently followed the commands to act immoral instead of following the supposedly higher moral law they earlier had received. It only shows how religion makes people morally corrupt.

[Neon Genesis]

 

I agree with LNC that a "god" of any kind could and perhaps should be above moral judgment, however, if a God is above human morality, then it still wouldn't be appropriate of God to command humans to breach the morals they have to obey. If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong, regardless if God commands it or not. I can go as far as to say that God can act anyway he/she/it wants, but humans are still obligated to follow the "absolute morality" (if such exists). So who did wrong in this situation? Perhaps not God, except for giving inappropriate commands conflicting with his own absolute dicta, but definitely the believers who obediently followed the commands to act immoral instead of following the supposedly higher moral law they earlier had received. It only shows how religion makes people morally corrupt.

But I disagree that God is above morality. If God is above morality, then I don't see why we as humans should be expected to follow a hypocrite who simply changes his mind as to what counts as morality arbitrarily. For LNC to argue that God is above morality to me would be like a parent is above morality and so they have a right to rape their own child if they want to just because the parent gave birth to the child. Besides, if God was supposedly perfect and all-loving like Christians say, then we would expect God to rise above petty human emotions, but the bible God seems to act more like a childish brat half the time than a loving god. Even Jesus acts ten times better than his own dad does. And even if God is above morality, God doesn't even follow that right half the time, as God just seems to do whatever he wants and can't go a single page without contradicting himself. And if God is above morality, then wouldn't whatever God says is moral be about as relevant to us as whatever Hitler says is morality? I just don't get this argument from xtians that our morals come from God yet they admit God is not moral. How do you get morals from a being that isn't moral?

[Ouroboros]

But I disagree that God is above morality.

Yes, I know. And that's a point I disagree with, and I know mostly everyone here is on your side on that one.

 

I base it on the concept of what "morality" is. It's a system of mores, based on human values, that apply to human action only.

 

When it comes to the question of animals who have moral behavior, I agree, they have it. They have agreed concepts of behavior. And we could call it "animal moral." But overall, the word itself "moral" contains the idea of how humans interact with other humans, and how humans interacts with nature.

 

Take this as an example:

 

Lets say I wrote a computer program with artificial intelligence. In that program I have created 5,000 small "entities", all "living" in a virtual world.

 

I apply certain rules how these entities should act and interact, just to create a stable system where they just don't go extinct within five minutes. One of these rules are: an entity can not erase the memory of a particular "apple" item.

 

Does that rule apply to me? Would I be breaking the morals on this system by erasing an apple item myself?

 

I think the problem lies in how wide or narrow we define the word "moral."

 

If God is above morality, then I don't see why we as humans should be expected to follow a hypocrite who simply changes his mind as to what counts as morality arbitrarily. For LNC to argue that God is above morality to me would be like a parent is above morality and so they have a right to rape their own child if they want to just because the parent gave birth to the child.

I don't see God->human as a concept of parent->child, but rather scientist/technician->robot/computer-software.

 

Besides, if God was supposedly perfect and all-loving like Christians say, then we would expect God to rise above petty human emotions, but the bible God seems to act more like a childish brat half the time than a loving god. Even Jesus acts ten times better than his own dad does. And even if God is above morality, God doesn't even follow that right half the time, as God just seems to do whatever he wants and can't go a single page without contradicting himself. And if God is above morality, then wouldn't whatever God says is moral be about as relevant to us as whatever Hitler says is morality? I just don't get this argument from xtians that our morals come from God yet they admit God is not moral. How do you get morals from a being that isn't moral?

There is a third option: amoral. Where the word/term/definition of "moral" doesn't apply. It's the "null" state.

 

But I agree that the Christian God acts like a jerk.

 

The thing is, if we would think that morals are absolute, then you would be right. If morals is something that is infinite, eternal, absolute, and exists as some supernatural law that applies to all kinds of beings in existence, including any kind of gods, angels, etc, then your critique is applicable. But I don't believe in absolute morals. And I think it's wrong for Christians to argue it too, just because of this contradiction.

 

In other words, LNC argues that absolute morals exist, but if they are absolute, then they would apply to God as well, and then God must also follow those morals. But if morals are not absolute, then God can have one moral code, and humans can have another. Animals can even have a different moral code than us and God. Just because we are not alike.

 

Consider this, the morals around the world, including small tribes in the jungles, does not always share the same moral system as us. There are some really crazy ones out there, and I won't go into them right here, but the cultural relativism that exists today, in this world, shows that morals are not identical. So which one should apply to God? The Christian? The Jewish? The Muslim? The Yanonamö?

 

But it really doesn't matter, since God doesn't exist anyway. (And just so you know, I respect your opinion.)

 

On another note, here's an interesting debate between Ehrman and Craig (I'm not sure this has been posted already before): http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm#EhrmanClose

[Neon Genesis]

 

Take this as an example:

 

Lets say I wrote a computer program with artificial intelligence. In that program I have created 5,000 small "entities", all "living" in a virtual world.

 

I apply certain rules how these entities should act and interact, just to create a stable system where they just don't go extinct within five minutes. One of these rules are: an entity can not erase the memory of a particular "apple" item.

 

Does that rule apply to me? Would I be breaking the morals on this system by erasing an apple item myself?

 

I think the problem lies in how wide or narrow we define the word "moral."

 

 

 

 

Maybe in a technical loop hole sense it might not apply, but if someone were to create rules that only apply to their creations, then they shouldn't be surprised when their creations don't listen to them when their own creators don't follow the rules. Like, let's say in your example that you do erase an apple item yourself but then those entities see you doing it and start thinking "If my creator can do it, why can't I?" It might not technically be against your rules for you to erase the apple item yourself, but if your entities start erasing apple items because they saw you doing it, shouldn't you still bear some of the responsibility if your entities start doing it because they're following your example? It's that whole "Do as I say, not as I do" thing but what if they start copying what you're doing because they're only following your example? Shouldn't you still bear responsibility for how they act when they're modeling themselves after you? Besides, where's the challenge in playing a game where you can do whatever you want with the players and break the game rules at will? I'm randomly reminded of this episode of Dexter's Lab: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=CTJU2hz9hF0

 

I don't see God->human as a concept of parent->child, but rather scientist/technician->robot/computer-software.

I used the God/parent analogy because that's the way the bible describes God and that's the favorite arguments from Christians. We actually had a guest speaker at my parents' church once that tried to compare God murdering all the Amalekite babies in 1 Samuel to a parent disciplining their child.

[centauri]

Antlerman:

Say... I'm taking off a couple days off work Monday and Tuesday for a 4 day weekend. Think I should take on LNC head-on? I just haven't had the time or energy these days with a major project at work. I'd like to brush the dust off my keyboard and apply half the energy others have been with him to see if I couldn't maybe accomplish something fruitful for him.

I doubt it.

He's already accomplished everything in the field of truth.

He's hardwired to God, how can you top that?

One has to ask, with all the effort he is making here... exactly who is he trying to convince? Us, or himself?

In my opinion, he's a classic bulldozer.

The game is to keep pounding away and as skeptics get weary of all the assertions posing as truth being repeated over and over again, they simply stop responding, leaving him with the feeling that nobody could dent his version of reality.

He delights in praising his ideas about the object of his worship.

The fixation on validating the resurrection as the best explanation for the "evidence", reminds me of the poster "Badger" who spent many days beating that drum in another thread.

[Mriana]

I could use a good hot tub and back rub. Any takers? Kidding... I'm a eunuch. A True Believer. It was at a tent revival. I was drunk in the Holy Spirit, with a pair of hedge shears in my hands, and an insane test from the Lord on high... Let's just say, I'm now free from fleshly desires.

 

Well, gee, as well as being terribly painful, you must have a VERY boring life. I feel for you, Antlerman. *Mriana gives the poor eunuch a hug* Er... get your imagination out of the gutter! I'm only 4' 11", so my head is on your chest or we're eye to eye if you are sitting down, so my head is on your shoulder.

 

 

Whoever said he's a troll is probably right. Otherwise, he's closer to insanity.

 

*Mriana raises hand* Er... That would be me. There might have been another person beside me, but I called him/her a troll among other things. (One of my Lwaxana Troi v Ferengi moments. )

 

You're naughty, Mriana. I like that in a woman!

 

Oh, not just naughty, have you seen the pic in my siggy lately?

[Ouroboros]

Maybe in a technical loop hole sense it might not apply, but if someone were to create rules that only apply to their creations, then they shouldn't be surprised when their creations don't listen to them when their own creators don't follow the rules. Like, let's say in your example that you do erase an apple item yourself but then those entities see you doing it and start thinking "If my creator can do it, why can't I?" It might not technically be against your rules for you to erase the apple item yourself, but if your entities start erasing apple items because they saw you doing it, shouldn't you still bear some of the responsibility if your entities start doing it because they're following your example? It's that whole "Do as I say, not as I do" thing but what if they start copying what you're doing because they're only following your example? Shouldn't you still bear responsibility for how they act when they're modeling themselves after you? Besides, where's the challenge in playing a game where you can do whatever you want with the players and break the game rules at will? I'm randomly reminded of this episode of Dexter's Lab:

I think that's a valid point, and it goes together with my earlier post where I say it isn't immoral of God to do these things, but they are inappropriate, and as you point out for even more reasons. It is showing bad example. It is building mistrust. And so on, and as such, God is doing wrong, but only in the sense of creating a good outcome. God won't get a good outcome by being a bad example. But then again, that isn't an immoral act in itself, just bad choices by God.

 

I used the God/parent analogy because that's the way the bible describes God and that's the favorite arguments from Christians. We actually had a guest speaker at my parents' church once that tried to compare God murdering all the Amalekite babies in 1 Samuel to a parent disciplining their child.

Very true. And I think, just because of the view of morality, it's a bad image of God. If God did exist, a "father" image is not the one they should go with, of the reasons you mention. God would then have to be a moral example, which he/she/it isn't in the Bible.

 

As always, Christians want it both ways. They want the cake, and eat it, and every time you try to tell them they can't do both, they demand us to prove it.

[Ouroboros]

In my opinion, he's a classic bulldozer.

The game is to keep pounding away and as skeptics get weary of all the assertions posing as truth being repeated over and over again, they simply stop responding, leaving him with the feeling that nobody could dent his version of reality.

He delights in praising his ideas about the object of his worship.

The fixation on validating the resurrection as the best explanation for the "evidence", reminds me of the poster "Badger" who spent many days beating that drum in another thread.

You hit it on the head.

 

Just so you know about Badger, he changed his attitude after he had a bad experience himself with another hardcore Christian, and they had some dispute (if I understand it right). Then he started to back off, dramatically.

 

How did anyone get to Heaven, before Jesus came along (i.e. anyone from the OT)?

By being "righteous". Acting according to God's commands and moral rules. But according to Romans, no one can live up to God's standards of righteous, so that's why Jesus did all for that stuff. But then... the conclusion must be that no one in the OT got saved!? If it is impossible, then it is impossible. If it is not impossible, then we don't need Jesus.

[dagnarus]

Tough words. I guess that *I* get to judge "god?" If "god" found someone guilty then it should have punished them itself. No need to force any lacky to do the job. Floods and other destruction from above (see Genesis or Exodus) would be enough for the baby killers. A "god" doesn't need a human (or other) army...ever.

 

mwc

 

God doesn't need a human army, for sure. Interesting. So why might God use humans?

 

It makes sense to me that God would use humans in order to teach or reinforce in them some important behavior, making them empowered and more self-responsible.

 

However, in this case, God judged that genocide was an important behavior for his people to internalize. Why?

 

You folks know more about this passage than I do. What are the differences between the peoples they purportedly obliterated and those they conquered, but whose lives they spared? Were the Canaanites so vicious that it was a case of obliterate or be obliterated?

 

Phanta

 

Joshua 9 tells the story of how the Gibeonites knowing that they were likely to die soon decided to trick the Israelites into making them into slaves and tributaries to them in exchange for not getting killed. Jehovah was pissed. In answer the difference between those conquered and those obliterated was either, the Jews didn't manage to kill them, or the conquered managed to trick the Jews into showing mercy. The reason for the obliteration again wasn't obliterate or be obliterated. It was if you leave these people alive then one day they'll lead you away after their God's. Although references to their supposed evils were also made.

[Neon Genesis]

 

As always, Christians want it both ways. They want the cake, and eat it, and every time you try to tell them they can't do both, they demand us to prove it.

And I don't get where xtians get this idea that only xtians can be moral because it's certainly not an argument found in the teachings of Jesus. When Jesus tells the Pharisees to be good neighbors, he uses the parable of the man on the street that needs help to illustrate who he thinks is a good neighbor. When all the pious religous leaders pass him by, they simply ignore him and don't offer to help. But it's the Samaritan, a non-believer, who help the man and who Jesus says was the good neighbor. There are other instances where Jesus says belief doesn't count for squat, it's how you treat others that matters. In another story, the apostles mention another man is casting out demons in Jesus' name that isn't one of them and they ask Jesus what should be done about it and Jesus says not to worry about it, that anyone who is not against him is with him, contrary to the popular Christian quote that who is not with us is against us. So Jesus obviously thought little of piety and I don't get why xtians think that's what makes you good.