Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[bdp]

I am very concerned about people being killed and sent to hell, that is why I am on this site pleading with you to investigate Jesus and to find in him your hope of eternal life. I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to.

 

This is so condescending - EX-Christian, get it? Meaning I was and now I'm not. I investigated. I get so tired of you constantly braying 'You don't understand' to everyone - we can fully understand and yet, believe it or not, come to a completely different conclusion than you. Find your comfort in your fiction - I don't believe because I can't, pure and simple. I can accept a transient life with no transcendent meaning.

[Ouroboros]

I am very concerned about people being killed and sent to hell, that is why I am on this site pleading with you to investigate Jesus and to find in him your hope of eternal life. I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to.

 

It seems to me a necessary part of how God created the social human, that some must fall away. Without me, in my unbelieving state, other Eves would inevitably step forward to see for themselves--Eve's who, with my living example of what not to do, would otherwise remain faithful. Isn't a certain balance of unbelievers (and thus souls crushed or burned or evaporated or whatever at death) necessary for sustaining and growing the pool of believers?

And one problem is that how can free will be of something greater good, if humans are punished when using it? Adam and Eve used their free will, but it wasn't good.

 

I think LNC can stop worrying. If there is a God, and there is a Heaven, and Jesus is the way, I'll cheat and accept him after I die. Simple as that. There is no argument in the Bible that it can't be done. It only assumes that it can't, but never does it explain why not.

 

But here's the challenge: LNC, pray to Jesus to reveal himself to me, and I'll be saved. You got the direct line to Heaven. You make the call, and ask for a miracle. It would be a miracle even God wants, isn't it? And it wouldn't be testing God, but rather you asking God to fulfill his deepest intentions.

[agnosticator]

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

 

OK, I'll add mischievious and diabolical!

[Ouroboros]

That's confusing.

It sure is. Christianity is trying to undo the Jewish religion and replace it with some "magical" solution, which doesn't really fit.

 

Perhaps as I do my Bible study, it will all become clear. (I'm still gathering texts.)

I doubt it. The Bible is an obfuscated text of non-realistic idealizations of an imaginary world. It's the textual version of the Twilight Zone.

[oddbird1963]

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.

 

That's confusing.

 

This is the kind of stuff that led me away from Christianity. As a CHILD. The perpetual "What the fuck?" going off in my head.

 

Perhaps as I do my Bible study, it will all become clear. (I'm still gathering texts.)

 

Phanta

 

(back to page 15; woo-hoo!)

 

In the Old Testament there is no well-formed, crystallized doctrine of heaven. The core of the covenant between Israel and yahweh was "follow my commands an you get to dwell in the land." It was a cosmic land deal. The notion of personal salvation or heavenly bliss as a reward for a life of faithfulness was undeveloped - hinted at if mentioned at all.

 

In the Inter-testamental period - after the books of the old testament were formed and before the new testament, I believe various sects of Judaism began to adopt ideas about heaven and hell from different sources, including the Zoroastrians with whom they began to have contact during the captivity.

 

Contrary to contemporary conservative christian doctrine, the bible does not present with a unified set of theological assumptions. The god portrayed in the old testament is a warrior god upon whom the writers have grafted attributes of various nature gods from the region to try to encourage loyalty to yahweh alone.

 

It only becomes confusing from a christian perspective when the bible is approached as a unified whole, where theological statements made from the new testament are assumed to have been true from the beginning of time. If it is the christian doctrine that is the source of confusion, then no one can blame you. There is no good way to explain how people from OT times got into heaven. It doesn't fit into the New Testament model of salvation. All the explanations provided are ad hoc and fraught with problems of consistency and credibility.

[Ouroboros]

Was God letting in people who weren't perfect before Jesus showed up on the scene? Or was there some other way of totally purifying sinners before Jesus showed up? Or was nobody REALLY let in before Jesus showed up on the scene? Or was Jesus' sacrifice retroactive, covering those who believed in the correct God and were trying to follow him with their hearts and minds before Jesus came on scene?

Good point.

 

The book of Hebrews claims that Jesus sacrifice was retroactive, and that the "righteous" in the OT were saved because they believed in the coming savior, but I think that's a stretch. What about people today who believe God will save them in the future? They missed the chance? Even if they don't know about the past event?

 

It takes a lot of zealous verbiage and overly abstracted explanations to get these concepts into an agreement.

 

But even worse, I think, is the problem of people who never heard about the Gospel at all. Some lonely tribe in the Amazon jungle, are they all going to Hell? Some Christians suggests that God would deal with them according to their knowledge, so they might go to Heaven after all, if they acted according to some basic moral ideas (whatever they are). And that just causes another problem, and it's the fact that then it's better to not evangelize people. Since they have a higher chance of actually going to Heaven without knowing the Gospel, than hearing the Gospel and possibly rejecting it.

 

Then again, some Christians say that we can't really know God's wisdom. But then, why bother trying to please God using some religious beliefs we can't really know works? Isn't it better then to act to our best knowledge as of now, and not try so hard to please God, since no one really knows!?

[Mriana]

I am very concerned about people being killed and sent to hell, that is why I am on this site pleading with you to investigate Jesus and to find in him your hope of eternal life. I don't want any of you to have to suffer this fate, and you don't have to. But I can't make you believe, that is something that you have to decide for yourself and it may require you to pull the Bible out and read it again and dig into it to better understand it.

 

There is no such thing as hell. That was created by those in power, in this case the Church, to instill fear and control the vulgar. It simply is not true.

 

BTW, if you helps any, there is a minister who says the same thing and I'm sure I've pointed this out to you before, but I doubt you watched it:

 

Unlike him though, except as the planet recycling it's vast eco-system, I don't believe in life after death. Basically we are plant food IMO. However, if you are so sure, have yourself buried with your cell phone and call me when you get there, so you can tell me all about it. Oh don't worry about my phone number. If your god is all knowing as you say, he already has my number. Just ask him. He knows I've given permission to give it to total strangers who have died and gone to some afterlife.

[bdp]

btw, LNC is contradicting himself here - this isn't the reason he gave for being on this site a couple hundred pages ago.

[Antlerman]

 

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?

Life happened. I'm somewhat drained to expend energy dissecting and communicating through others arguments for their points of view. On top of that, I'm just plain busy with work. I need to really feel inspired that there is something intriguing enough to me personally that will motivate me to expend the energy. I'm also not feeling bored when shooting fish in a barrel provides an entertainment value for me.

 

Right now the concept of emergence and holarchy intrigues me, in addition to social theory and of course my real baby, language and semiology. It's always been my hope to find some meeting of minds between reason and faith, and for the most part I feel I've found that for myself. Not that there's any 'arrival', but more a mindset that sees no animosity between a religious point of view and the rationalistic approach which provides an approach to living that allows a fuller more meaningful exploration of beauty and knowledge in an inspiring and humbling universe.

 

I've been considering maybe inviting both Ray and LNC to an open discussion, but I would refuse to get embroiled into a 'who's right, and who's wrong' argument. Those are moot debates to me at this point. I've always had the hope to embrace those of opposing points of view and find a commonality with them which allows us to transcend a narrowly defined approach to living life. I know it's possible. I've experienced it. For the most part, outside your power-seeking political leaders from whichever camp, people live together in the middle and desire respect, understanding, appreciation, and acceptance.

 

So how about it LNC? What do you want?

[Mriana]

btw, LNC is contradicting himself here - this isn't the reason he gave for being on this site a couple hundred pages ago.

 

Yes, so it appears.

[centauri]

...Christians believe that God told the Jews to follow his law in order to achieve salvation, but this was impossible for even one of them to do, and He knew it would be.

 

Christians believe that Jesus' sacrifice is what brings people salvation, because no one can follow God's law well enough to obtain salvation.

 

You've touched on an area where Christians rely on their canned talking points(aka myths) to carry the day.

However, both the Old and New Testaments say that people could keep the law, it wasn't impossible.

Moses even told the people the law was not too difficult to obey.

Ezek 18:20-27 wrecks Christianity because it states that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and keeping the law of God.

No vicarious human sacrifice is needed for salvation.

The sacrifice of Jesus wasn't even legal under the law he was supposed to be living under and "fulfilling".

And then there's the sticky problem of Elijah and Enoch, who were taken by God from earth without them dying or being resurrected.

They both came to the Father without going through Jesus.

I've had Christians tell me that Elijah and Enoch never made it to heaven, they're actually in stasis waiting for Jesus to fetch them.

[Ouroboros]

I've had Christians tell me that Elijah and Enoch never made it to heaven, they're actually in stasis waiting for Jesus to fetch them.

Wow. So there are three places now, or is it four? Fascinating that the Christians never run out of new "Universes" to invent to explain one thing or the other. But if a scientist talks about a multiverse... God forbid, it can't exist.

[RationalOkie]

I've had Christians tell me that Elijah and Enoch never made it to heaven, they're actually in stasis waiting for Jesus to fetch them.

Wow. So there's three places now, or is it four? Fascinating that the Christians never run out of new "Universes" to invent to explain one thing or the other. But if a scientist talks about a multiverse... God forbid, it can't exist.

 

There you go with that Junk Science again...tisk..tisk. I was standing over a 10 foot putt today and the thought suddenly came over me....what if there was another universe 'membrane' about to collide with the one I'm in. I mean, that would suck but the up side is this putt doesn't really mean that much. For the record, and I'm not kidding, I made that putt. Screw M theory...junk ass science.

 

People like LNC make me want to scream. They know absolutely nothing and yet he acts as if he's in on some secret that the rest of us are unaware of. Punk!

[Antlerman]

People like LNC make me want to scream. They know absolutely nothing and yet he acts as if he's in on some secret that the rest of us are unaware of. Punk!

As I said... he's about convincing himself. That's his secret.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I've been considering maybe inviting both Ray and LNC to an open discussion, but I would refuse to get embroiled into a 'who's right, and who's wrong' argument. Those are moot debates to me at this point. I've always had the hope to embrace those of opposing points of view and find a commonality with them which allows us to transcend a narrowly defined approach to living life. I know it's possible. I've experienced it. For the most part, outside your power-seeking political leaders from whichever camp, people live together in the middle and desire respect, understanding, appreciation, and acceptance.

 

I wouldn't mind it so much if LNC didn't agree with us on everything. The thing that annoys me with LNC though is that all he's pretty much done since coming to ex-c is harass other atheists. And why is it always only atheists he insults? Why doesn't he ever bring up the other non-xtian believers at ex-c? He acts like it's all either xtianity or hardcore materialism in his debates. I'm also annoyed with how he thinks he has the one true way and is convinced he knows more than Ehrman yet if he thinks he has proof the resurrection is real, why doesn't he contact Ehrman himself? I've emailed Ehrman before and I got a pretty quick email back, so I'm sure Ehrman would love to hear from him if LNC really does have proof. That he seems to want to harass atheists more than save Ehrman's soul speaks to me that he really doesn't have any proof at all yet he acts like he's the victim.

[Antlerman]

I wouldn't mind it so much if LNC didn't agree with us on everything. The thing that annoys me with LNC though is that all he's pretty much done since coming to ex-c is harass other atheists. And why is it always only atheists he insults? Why doesn't he ever bring up the other non-xtian believers at ex-c? He acts like it's all either xtianity or hardcore materialism in his debates.

What I sense is that he is basing his confidence in his 'faith' through being able to defend it through having 'solid arguments'. Having 'the answers' is what matters. It's more important and more a focus than that ever so nebulous thing of living with principles and having to figure it out as you go. "We're right!" is an illusion, and a substitute for actually understanding with, and being guided by principles of the heart. It's a religion of the head.

 

Sadly, when someone is driven to prop up their religious system with validating arguments, as opposed to simply adopting what actually works specifically for them in healthy and productive ways, they will in fact not be objective or 'balanced' about it, and instead become irrational, stubborn, arrogant, prideful, judgmental, narrow-minded, bigoted, etc in an unhealthy and desperate attempt to defend something they hold out a desire to to give them the security and stability they believe they have to have. Life is not like this.

 

What I see is an expression of this dread insecurity in all the 'defenses' offered. Everything you mentioned is consistent with that motivation. As I said, who is he trying to convince? Us, or himself? Life is not black and white. There is truth to what he says, just as there is truth to what we say as well. Neither has the sole proprietorship on Answers, yet both are explorations of something valid and significant to the human experience. Literalism on either side is the same thing, and inadequate to open up the doors of deeper understanding, IMHO.

 

For me, when I was a defender of the Truth as a religious person, the end result was I ended up with an empty substitute for something of genuine substance. It took loosening the hold on the notion of "having the Answer" in order to find genuine meaning. LNC argues as he does, because.... why? Who for? Us, or himself that he real has something that will give him what it promises it will for those who are true to it? It's a facsimile for something real. "He that would find life must being willing to loose his life". In giving up an insistence of having the answers, you start to actually find them. At least this is my experience.

 

Food for thought.

[LNC]

To clarify my statement that you weren’t responding to my posts, that was true at the time I said it from what I had seen. It seems you did respond, but it was time-delayed as I assume you were busy trying to catch up. Check the time stamps of when things were said. You do respond, but hadn’t at the time I made my complaint. Now to your responses:

 

I disagree strongly that people misquoting snippets of the Bible is representative of all people on this site, as your wording suggests “it is the people on this site”. Some people, surely yes, but sure as hell not everyone. That some might make inappropriate quotes from the Bible… well… I attribute it to where they learned the Bible from – the apologists who approach the texts badly themselves. It takes awhile to shake off the bad habits of those who taught them.

 

That you say there is NO hard work being done to understand the Bible, that is utterly absurd and foolish for you to say. I spend a great deal of time seeking knowledge and understanding of it, not from skeptics sites which you falsely accuse me of, but from Christian scholars who take a more liberal approach to the texts, allowing themselves to evaluate it as literature and not some assumed work of perfection that we have to find someway to make it fit that model – as you do.

 

Do you seek knowledge and understanding outside party line apologist material, which you claim that I don't? Do you take and honest look at your faith through the eyes of Christians your church normally dismiss as 'confused'? Or are you looking to see how they're in error, and your views are right? How open is your quest for understanding? As open as you're asking me to be?

 

I refuse to have the parameters of understanding be defined and limited by others. This is why religious faith through the doctrines of the 'orthodox' fails so miserably for me. "God", whatever you want that to mean, becomes limited into the boxes of priests and theologians. More on that later.

 

I don’t go to skeptics sites to build my understandings. Though they have some value, for me it’s a bit limited at times in the overall scope of things I’m diligently trying to understand. It all goes vastly beyond just a case of ‘this is true” or “this is wrong”. So your assumptions about me are plain ignorant. Then there is MWC, whose knowledge and continuing research pales yours in comparison. Then there is Hans, and a whole lot of others here who are anything but just buying into rhetoric of those more hard-core skeptics whom you seem to try to lump the lot of us in with.

 

Your statement about “no hard work is being done” here, betrays your political desire for that to be true, but the facts flatly contradict you. Your logic may be valid based on your premise, but your premise is false so your argument collapses into a lifeless heap.

 

OK, that makes sense, Yes, there are time delays as there are many responding to me, but only one of me to reply back.

 

I will accept the fact that not everyone is knowingly misrepresenting the Bible and apologize for my generalization; however, I will take it that you were being tongue-in-cheek when you say that they learned these misrepresentations from apologists. I will say that there is no hard work being done by those who simply read the English and don't read commentaries, it becomes apparent in their comments, but again, it does not apply to everyone.

 

As for me, yes I do read both sides and have read Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus as well as other works by those from the more liberal perspective. I have already said that I don't believe that Ehrman gets everything wrong in his book and actually has some good things to say; however, I think that he wrote the book to appeal to the popular culture who is not well read on the subject as he even contradicts some of his more scholarly works in this book as I documented in a paper I recently wrote on the topic.

 

I don't believe that by trying to understand God, that we limit him in any way. I think that we can understand him without limiting him. As for your assessment of MWC, Hans and others, I can only go by what I read on these threads and based upon much of what I have read, I simply don't see a lot of reading beyond the English text. I see a lot of rehashed arguments that I see on the skeptic websites. So, if they are getting these arguments on their own, independent of these sites as you say, then I guess I will have take you word for that as I have no other evidence to indicate that.

 

So, because you haven’t seen it, you therefore conclude, pass your judgment with divine and precise insight, that I fit this world of toeing the party line with the skeptic and atheist sites? Ask any one member here on this site if this in any way describes me.

 

I do not parrot Bart Ehrman. In fact I really haven’t read much of him, as my interests about the origins of the Christian faith delves into areas that he doesn’t touch upon. From what I’ve read, even though he has a respectable ability, doesn’t touch into the more social/philosophical perspectives that I see value in. So… once again, you are making leaps in your assessment of me that are false.

 

Why are you so quick to dismiss when you don’t have the facts? More to the point, what propels you to make these assumptions, as opposed to actually trying to understand? Is that about defending your point of view through dismissing critics? An ad hominem???

 

BTW, how many years have you been studying the Bible? I’ve been studying it for 32 years (since you suggested that I open it and actually read it – just wanted to point out that other error you went leaping off to).

 

OK, again, I will accept your explanation and apologize for being hasty in my assessment. I have been studying the Bible for over 30 years now as well.

 

These discussions are grounded in truth. They are the truths of our experiences. They really happened. We really feel what we do.

 

Yes, we all need to question our assumptions. This includes you, as I have made clear in what I’ve said above about your unexamined assumptions about me and others of this site. You were plainly wrong. So I suggest you take the spoonful of medicine you just prescribe here and administer it to yourself as well.

 

So are you now willing to jettison your assumptions, or do we need to do this dance again for you?

 

I have already indicated that above. I will ask that many of you do the same with me. Maybe, the vitriol some express on this site could be toned down a bit so we could speak more civilly. Although I am not offended by it, it does seem to often take the place of actual arguments.

 

Thanks for asking. No, in no way whatsoever by saying this is a safe environment do I mean a sheltered one. The more exposure to opposing ideas the better, IMO. We all need to have our assumptions challenged. It keeps us on the path of growth, rather than falling into a pool of rhetoric, and set of doctrines - like we did as Christians.

 

As far as terms like ‘sky daddy’ and whatnot, I accept that people use them for reasons that have meaning to them. I consider it to be a means of reclaiming power to be smash the sacred idols of the past and take power over them in their lives. I’d use the term “Therapeutic Blasphemy”. If they feel to say that, they are supported here to level their criticisms of the religion as they wish to. I don’t feel those symbols hold power over me anymore, and in fact I have very different perspectives on all of it at this point, so where I’m at I don’t feel a need to approach things like that now. At one point it was appropriate, and even now and then I like to tease about it (such as my teasing “Jesus Countdown thread).

 

You say that your question about if Jesus is who is says than we are all in peril if we don’t see things as others do about him (being in “rebellion” as you chose to frame that), is the heart of the matter, is in fact what I did and do object to. First it’s a restating of Pascal’s wager, which has inherent and fatal flaws. And secondly, it preys upon people’s fear. It preys upon the fear of this all powerful God of Love and Contradiction, to send them into darkness and suffering for all eternity for not, essentially, become a member of church (which it really all boils down to).

 

As far as the scope of your whole argument, I think it lacks dimension and understanding. It’s not just a simple matter of agreeing on an understanding of an ancient text from a culture we only have at best an outsider’s perspective on, but delves into the reality of why people believe.

 

People adopt Christianity without being Greek scholars, or even having cracked the Bible open. So why then should that be the criteria for us, and not them? You see? Go there with me, then I will discuss with you. I would welcome a discussion with you on that level. For me, you are hiding behind your theology, and not seeing the true nature of faith, either for that system or elsewhere. Come there with me, if you care to venture beyond the ‘protection’ of your doctrines. If you have truth it will guide you, without needing to quote this verse or that.

 

As you noted your reply, I did say "if" the Christian message is true that people who reject him are in peril. That is a true statement based upon what the Bible says and not a threat on my part or the part of the Biblical authors, simply a statement of reality if the Bible is true. However, it is only a threat in the sense that it is a threat when a person warns someone standing in a road of an oncoming vehicle bearing down on him/her. The person giving the warning is not threating the person in the road of impending death or injury, simply warning them of the reality of the situation. I use the word if as I realize that with any history there is a degree of probability of it being either true or false, and where that probability lies in dependent on the strength of the evidence. I believe that my study has shown the strength of the evidence to be quite compelling and I understand that you and others on this site disagree. So, hopefully we can continue to study and come closer together in our understanding of that evidence. I will try to restrain myself from making further genralizations, but I am a sinner as well and sometimes I make mistakes or even give in to my sinful nature, so when that happens and it is pointed out, I will ask your forgiveness.

[LNC]

What he's saying is false. People don't get kicked off because their views offend, but if their speech is inflammatory, that is another matter. The harsh response I had, which is probably the first time I've ever slammed my hand down so hard, was based on the way it came across in his word choices, outright implying we support and condone rape and child abuse. That is an offense against us as human beings. Very different than finding someones views offensive to our sensibilities. One is a view, the other an action. I can say I find his view that God plans to shove people into a lake of fire offensive, but he is allowed to share them because its his perspectives.

 

Just to clarify in the hopes that LNC states the facts honestly going forward. I let him back in because he explained to my satisfaction how I mistook his intentions. I would never ban anyone for having views differently than me. I welcome diversity of opinions, but not false or inflammatory accusations.

 

I took it at the time that I was suspended due to the views that I expressed; however, I will give and gave Antlerman the benefit of the doubt at the time that my words were misunderstood to be an accusation, and you were good enough to lift the suspension when I explained my intentions.

[LNC]

Willing? By Thor's Holy Gonads, I was willing. I believed it was right. I studied it from the it was right point of view. I was a Christian a Pastor and Evangelist for 40 fucking years. I discovered it was wrong against my will. I wanted it to be right, but it wasn't right. I told people it was right even as I was loosing my own faith. I didn't think, "gee I'd like to quit being a Christian, I'd better find a few excuses."

 

Much the same can be said of everyone you are arguing with here. So your question is a bit insulting, which is your usual mode of operation.

 

I do agree with you that some middle east archaeology does agree with some bible history. But that doesn't support the supernatural baloney. Historical novels have some actual history in them, but that doesn't make the particulars of their stories true.

 

Maybe you could tell me what led you away from the faith, I am curious as to what changed your mind after 40 years. You are right that the archeology alone doesn't prove the Bible to be true; however, it does show that the authors put in falsifiable information and were concerned with writing and preserving history.

[LNC]

 

If the Bible is not history, then you need to explain to me why archealogists keep discovering sites and people that are discussed in the Bible. If it is not eyewitness accounts, you need to explain why historians (and not just Christian historians) consider it to be such. If the stories were made up hundreds of years later, why do we have fragments that date within three decades of when we believe the original to be written? I believe you are claiming to have studied it for decades which makes me wonder how you could come to conclusions that even Bart Ehrman, about whom this thread was started, would not hold.

 

Once again displaying your astonishing lack of ability to go beyond simplistic black and white thinking.

 

It seems that you are using the law of non-contradiction to say that my use of logic is wrong. Is black and white thinking always wrong?

[LNC]

Your resolutions were based on wishful thinking and weak assertions.

You want your speculations to be valid history and somehow think that positing any rationalization makes it so.

Much like your version of God, the phrase "reasonable answers" is subjective, based on your personal whims and preferences.

 

Not at all. What I am saying is that there are possible answers to these apparent problems, which means that they aren't necessarily problems. If my answers are subjective and based upon my personal whims and preferences, why is that also not true of your objections? The knife cuts both ways.

 

I outlined the characteristics of a cult and the cult leader attributes that Jesus clearly displayed.

No point can ever be proved because you live in your own reality, where you wave your magic wand and determine reality for yourself and then declare it as truth.

 

You didn't really address my post. No further is necessary.

 

Once again, the word "reasonable" is subjective, just like your "history" and your version of "truth".

I also already gave examples of Christians defining other sects of Christianity as cults.

You ignored that of course and are right back at your usual game, which is dance your jig of "truth", place it on a pedestal and expect others to acknowledge it as such.

 

The term "reasonable" is used in our legal system, so it must not be as subjective as you think. Maybe instead a making assertions about my "history" and my "version" of truth, you could instead give your definition of these terms so we can come to some agreement on their usage.

 

I don't believe that I have defined any group as a cult here on this thread, so just because others may do so, is not really relevant to our discussion. The important point is that you set a definition for the term "cult" that would define many other groups that are not generally considered cults, and that should indicate that you have either cast too broad a net, or misused the term.

 

However, even if the term "cult" properly applied to Christianity, it still wouldn't mean that Christianity is untrue, so I don't know what your application of the term to Christianity does for you.

[LNC]

I think there is a dimension to the word cult that involves its status in society. There are mainline religions and denominations. There are spin offs from those which have gained more or less accepted status. Then there are the less accepted to scorned sects and spin offs that are given the derisive term "cult" by either the more accepted religious groups or society as a whole.

 

Cult has little to do with the psychological processes or extremes of behavior and more to do with its status with the accepted majorities. Certainly a great many are shunned because of their extreme practices and the psychological harm they do, but in terms of group dynamics and psychology, cults and mainline/accepted religious groups can look very similar in nature.

 

So, I must come down on the side of centauri on this issue.

 

I will ask you the same question. Suppose that the term cult did properly apply to Christianity, it doesn't mean that Christianity is untrue, so what else does it do for you to use this term?

[dagnarus]

Willing? By Thor's Holy Gonads, I was willing. I believed it was right. I studied it from the it was right point of view. I was a Christian a Pastor and Evangelist for 40 fucking years. I discovered it was wrong against my will. I wanted it to be right, but it wasn't right. I told people it was right even as I was loosing my own faith. I didn't think, "gee I'd like to quit being a Christian, I'd better find a few excuses."

 

Much the same can be said of everyone you are arguing with here. So your question is a bit insulting, which is your usual mode of operation.

 

I do agree with you that some middle east archaeology does agree with some bible history. But that doesn't support the supernatural baloney. Historical novels have some actual history in them, but that doesn't make the particulars of their stories true.

 

Maybe you could tell me what led you away from the faith, I am curious as to what changed your mind after 40 years. You are right that the archeology alone doesn't prove the Bible to be true; however, it does show that the authors put in falsifiable information and were concerned with writing and preserving history.

 

How does this show that the authors were writing and preserving history. Do we assume that because a book places some correct falsifiable information about this period of time, like the current presidents name and the location of certain cities that the author is attempting to preserve history with the main narrative. No these correct historical details are there merely to help with the telling of the main narrative. The fact that gospels mention a correct governor of the time and historical places doesn't mean that the story of Jesus is historical anymore than the fact that Forest Gump mentions a whole lot of famous people in history means that Forest Gump's story is historical. Furthermore the bible isn't one book it's many different books. So just because say 1 and 2 kings has a lot of information that has been found to be historically accurate that shouldn't bear on the books of the Pentateuch which have a different author/authors and are different books entirely.

[FiddlingAround]

LNC, since you are seeking out the reasons why we ceased to believe, here are my top two.

 

1. The Bible. Back when I was a Christian, I was never able to stick with Bible reading for long because it provoked too many doubts - not so much of the this is silly, can't possibly be true variety; it was more of a horror and loathing reaction. At this point, frankly, even if I knew god to be exactly as he is portrayed in the Bible, I don't think I could worship such a jerk.

 

2. Hell. I got to know too many non-Christians, you see, and wasn't able to accept that they would be punished for all eternity for so small a thing as unbelief. Frankly, if god has such a need to be accepted and worshipped, he should offer up some solid evidence of his own existence so that people don't roast for intellectual as opposed to moral issues. Of course, if he did we would quickly get into #1 above.

 

I tried for a long time to hold onto some sort of essence of Christianity while discarding or minimizing these elements. I tried out more and more liberal versions of Christianity, but by the time I found one I could swallow, there really wasn't much to distinguish it from secularism besides a preoccupation with Jesus. So I went back to the Bible, took a long hard look at him, and couldn't figure out what it was I was trying to hold on to. He's not horrid, I suppose, just kind of...meh.

 

I'll try to come up for some more for you, but in the meantime go ahead and look these over. Hope it makes us a little more comprehensible to you.

[Deva]

As you noted your reply, I did say "if" the Christian message is true that people who reject him are in peril. That is a true statement based upon what the Bible says and not a threat on my part or the part of the Biblical authors, simply a statement of reality if the Bible is true. However, it is only a threat in the sense that it is a threat when a person warns someone standing in a road of an oncoming vehicle bearing down on him/her. The person giving the warning is not threating the person in the road of impending death or injury, simply warning them of the reality of the situation. I use the word if as I realize that with any history there is a degree of probability of it being either true or false, and where that probability lies in dependent on the strength of the evidence. I believe that my study has shown the strength of the evidence to be quite compelling and I understand that you and others on this site disagree. So, hopefully we can continue to study and come closer together in our understanding of that evidence. I will try to restrain myself from making further genralizations, but I am a sinner as well and sometimes I make mistakes or even give in to my sinful nature, so when that happens and it is pointed out, I will ask your forgiveness.

 

I think the comparison of Bible God to a vehicle that is going to run me over is actually a good one. Kind of what I was feeling like when I was still in Christianity. Interestingly, God is the vehicle of destruction and the person who warns as well. Very strange. LNC will probably claim the God is not the oncoming vehicle, but its "sin". Then we must go to further questions about ultimate responsibility. Bottom line - God is responsible.

 

Its still a threat. Yes, we think the evidence is quite lacking in strength.