Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[agnosticator]

Wow! I missed all the excitement! Last nite's and today's posts are great and illuminating. Thanks Hans, NOTBLINDED..., and mwc.

 

I agree with Hans that god would be amoral, rather than all good. From a human perspective god seems to be both good and evil, as god's creation is good/evil. The christian perspective projects evil upon satan and humanity. But good and evil can only apply to human morality. If god exists, he cannot be good or evil as Hans has pointed out. That's has to do with human actions.

[agnosticator]

When God commanded Joshua to slaughter the Canaanites it was because the Canaanites had become an abomination. Do you know anything about the history of the Canaanites? Do you know that they would offer their children to pagan gods by burning them? Do you know what other kinds of ritualistic practices in which they were engaged? Unless you do, you are in no position to judge God for his commands. The answer is that it does not fill me with joy that the Canaanites became so wicked that they had to be so harshly judged. Judgment is never a good thing; however, neither is the sin that brings on that judgment. I won't ask you if it brings you joy that they were sacrificing their children in such a heinous way as I'm sure it is as detestable to you as the thought of their judgment is. However, before you put God on trial, you better make sure you have your evidence straight. In fact, you better make sure you understand the situation completely lest you be the one to look foolish. It would be unfortunate if you were to defend the guilty and indict the innocent, which is what you appear to be unwittingly doing.

 

So because the Caananite children were being sacrificed, the Caananite children deserved to be killed by the Jews. Does god punish the child for the sins of the parents or not? Depends on his mood.

 

I agree, Dagnarus. LNC, you seem to be affirming punishment for both the perpetrator and the victim, I suspect, as you would say, unwittingly. What's up with that?

 

Phanta

 

I reread this post, thanks for reposting it, and don't find that I am affirming the punishment of the victim with the perpetrator. I am simply explaining what happened. Why does God command that all living things be killed? I don't know and would only be speculating. Here is what I do know. God is omniscient and knows not only what has happened and will happen, but what could have happened. Therefore, he knows what could happen if circumstances go on as they are or would have gone on differently than they did. So, he may have seen what would have happened had he allowed any portion of the population to live. We also know that the people were not completely destroyed as Israel never carried out the commands completely in these cases, so it also could have been to test them. I am not sure, again, I am only speculating. However, if God exists, and I believe he does, his nature would include that he is inherently good (by definition) and would not commit an evil act, so I would assume that he had some valid purpose for giving this command, but since I don't know what the mind of God was in this situation, all I can do is speculate.

 

 

After all your comments about an atrocity, you claim god's mysterious ways....why don't you claim ignorance of knowing god's will, intentions, attributes, and makeup in all other areas? If you don't know "the mind of god" here, then you don't know god's "mind" pertaining to anything else either.

[Ouroboros]

I agree with Hans that god would be amoral, rather than all good. From a human perspective god seems to be both good and evil, as god's creation is good/evil. The christian perspective projects evil upon satan and humanity. But good and evil can only apply to human morality. If god exists, he cannot be good or evil as Hans has pointed out. That's has to do with human actions.

Thanks agnosticator, you understood me! It warmed my godless heart and non-supernatural spirit.

[agnosticator]

Thanks agnosticator, you understood me! It warmed my godless heart and non-supernatural spirit.

You're welcome Hans....now go have a beer

[Guest Queefsr4Quitters]

On page 175 of Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman discusses miracles as being virtually impossible events. He says that miracles are violations of natural law or, more accurately, that there aren't any laws in nature written down somewhere but that nature works in highly predictable ways. Would it be accurate though to label as something as improbable (or virtually impossible) when they are by nature unverifiable? Could it be possible to have, say, these natural laws broken on extremely rare occasions such that they cannot be tested in the lab yet they could very well be real? That is, is something unverifiable necessarily improbable? I don't believe in miracles personally, but I don't know if it's actually possible to place them in probability levels. Thoughts?

[mwc]

On page 175 of Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman discusses miracles as being virtually impossible events. He says that miracles are violations of natural law or, more accurately, that there aren't any laws in nature written down somewhere but that nature works in highly predictable ways. Would it be accurate though to label as something as improbable (or virtually impossible) when they are by nature unverifiable? Could it be possible to have, say, these natural laws broken on extremely rare occasions such that they cannot be tested in the lab yet they could very well be real? That is, is something unverifiable necessarily improbable? I don't believe in miracles personally, but I don't know if it's actually possible to place them in probability levels. Thoughts?

If you read my last post (or a couple back where I quote a lot of stuff from Mort Smith) it will explain some of this.

 

So as not to try to simply repeat any of that I'll just say that how can we discuss anything if there is a chance that the supernatural may be involved? That I am posting this very message may be divinely inspired, right? It may be the result of the supernatural. And so might all other events. How can we separate them? But we do have a basic grasp of how the natural world works. We have a basic set of expectations. We don't expect the supernatural to be involved in my post. We can safely ignore the possibility. The probability is right around 0%. Can we ever say it is 0%? Not really if we want to be totally honest and admit there is no test for the supernatural allowing us to rule it out but at the same time there is no test allowing us to admit it either. Since the supernatural has no tests at all it is safe to marginalize it until something comes along that forces us to change that.

 

This should be obvious now how much confidence we should put into the supernatural. We put little to no confidence into it in our daily lives. Even the highly superstitious among us tend to marginalize it. So when looking at past events why should it get any higher consideration than this? Ever? Even when people speak of "court room" scenarios there is no one today that will ever get away with anything based on a supernatural defense. Not in the US at least and we tend to be in the forefront of first world countries in terms of religious belief. "The devil made me do it" will never work. "God said I should do it" will fail just as quickly. The supernatural is not allowed. Inside a court these types of statements are usually the domain of the insane but outside the court room they are the domain of the true believers.

 

mwc

[oddbird1963]

 

After all your comments about an atrocity, you claim god's mysterious ways....why don't you claim ignorance of knowing god's will, intentions, attributes, and makeup in all other areas? If you don't know "the mind of god" here, then you don't know god's "mind" pertaining to anything else either.

 

 

YES! Absolutely right! For years, even when I was still a christian, I would ask myself, "How can that preacher ever say what god will do?" The local pastors speak so confidently about God's actions, god's will and god's intentions. Charles Stanley on the TV does it all the time. What arrogance! If there is a god, I don't think any human could understand said god in a way that makes its behavior knowable.

[centauri]

Morality is grounded in God's nature and apart from that grounding, we have no basis of objective morality as I have argued in the past. In fact, when I put out the challenge for those on this site to give me a basis of objective morality apart from God, no one was able to produce one.

When you were asked to establish that your version of God was "God", you couldn't produce that validation.

All you offered were personal assertions and beliefs, which establish nothing in regard to reality.

I simply think that those on this site may be missing what God was doing or jumping the gun in judgment of God for these events while not knowing fully the situation as an omniscient God would. You stand in judgment of God, which implies that you have some higher moral standard by which you are judging him and I simply ask on what you base that moral standard and why is it objective in nature allowing you to stand in such judgment?

You haven't established that your version of God has a higher moral standard than others.

Nor did you ever provide a list of the objective absolute moral standards that your version of God is supposed to embody.

 

So, you are simply left with a subjective standard by which you have no basis on which to judge, or you are the standard and that standard is subjective to you and you alone - not binding upon anyone else, in which case your judgment of God also fails.

You haven't established that your version of God has objective absolute moral standards, so you're back to square one, trying to create reality for others by asserting things that haven't been established.

[LNC]

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.

 

If we don't have free will, then we are all wasting our time with this discussion. Yet, I don't find too many people on this site that act as if free will didn't exist, including you.

 

How does one cheat an omnipotent God? The author of Hebrews wrote: "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." (9:27) So, apparently there will be no chances after one dies to "accept Jesus". BTW, the Bible also doesn't say that we are to "accept Jesus", it says that we are to trust in him (often also the word believe is used; however, the meaning of the Greek word is synonymous with trust).

 

I can't tell God what to do and my asking him to reveal himself to you may have already happened and been overlooked. I can't say for sure. However, when the rich man asked for such a sign to be sent to his brothers (Luke 16), Abraham said that they already had Moses and the prophets, and we also have Jesus, so no greater sign can be sent to us than him. I think that if you sincerely want a sign, you would be the best person to ask.

[Ouroboros]

If we don't have free will, then we are all wasting our time with this discussion.

Good point. Then don't.

 

Yet, I don't find too many people on this site that act as if free will didn't exist, including you.

Free Will is an illusion, but a necessary illusion. The complexity of all the forces makes it seem like we are free to choose, but deep down, if you really get to the nitty-gritty, we all have experiences and physical conditions which drives us to choose.

 

How does one cheat an omnipotent God? The author of Hebrews wrote: "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." (9:27) So, apparently there will be no chances after one dies to "accept Jesus". BTW, the Bible also doesn't say that we are to "accept Jesus", it says that we are to trust in him (often also the word believe is used; however, the meaning of the Greek word is synonymous with trust).

So basically God is judging the person immediately after he dies? Why is there a judgment day later on? For show?

 

And it doesn't say there isn't a chance to convert between death and judgment. It's your assumption and interpretation of the verse, but it really doesn't say that, and is open for alternative interpretations too.

 

I can't tell God what to do and my asking him to reveal himself to you may have already happened and been overlooked. I can't say for sure. However, when the rich man asked for such a sign to be sent to his brothers (Luke 16), Abraham said that they already had Moses and the prophets, and we also have Jesus, so no greater sign can be sent to us than him. I think that if you sincerely want a sign, you would be the best person to ask.

I want a sing, sincerely. But I also see daily, normal, worldly things, happening around me. What would the sign be? An obnoxious preacher spreading illogical ramblings on a website? Nah. That's too obvious.

[Deva]

If we don't have free will, then we are all wasting our time with this discussion. Yet, I don't find too many people on this site that act as if free will didn't exist, including you.

 

I don't believe in it either. I have a long history here of refuting the entire "free will" nonsense.Along with Hans, I say its an illusion and challenge you to prove otherwise.

[Neon Genesis]

And how is free will compatible with an all-knowing god that somehow controls everything yet at the same time we somehow simultaneously have free will?

[LNC]

The idea that God could even forgive a mass murderer is a thought that would, indeed, bring great hope to many believers brought low by the shame and fear of their own sins. Lovely and useful for those folk.

 

But the mass murderer who comes to believe in and love Jesus, say on his deathbed, whose sins are washed away, and who dies and goes to heaven...has not paid a penalty in this life. If I understand you, he is not going to pay in the next. I mention this because you have said many, many times in this thread that a wrong done in this life that is not paid one way or another--in this life or the next-- is the mark of an unjust God/universe. What do you make of this?

 

I don't know that a mass murderer ever really pays for his or her sin in this lifetime, no matter how long his or her life is when caught and convicted. The mass murder who truly repents and trusts in Jesus is not paying for his or her sin either, that is done by the death of Jesus. So, whether the repentance happens early in the person's life or on their deathbed, the payment is still made by Jesus. The person who remains unrepentant will receive justice in the afterlife, while the repentant receives mercy because of Jesus' payment on their behalf.

 

Ugh, yes. Heaven does sound rather dreadful. But then, I'm not sure of what worshipping Jesus entails. What will this worshipping entail?

 

Heaven will not be dreadful for those who have trusted in Jesus, it will be...heaven. There will be other activities in heaven; however, the main focus will be knowing the God of the universe more and more each moment, while never being able to know him fully. The more we know the more we will want to worship him. It will be like discovering new and exciting aspects of God all the time and having more and more joy and excitement with each discovery. I think we all know the joy of discovering new places, knowledge, understanding, etc. and how exciting and joyful that experience can be. That will be what heaven will be like and one will never grow weary of learning these new ideas.

 

So you would show compassion to the family of the mass murder by telling the that God was killed 2000 years ago to pay for the murderer's act. How is this comforting?

 

Phanta

 

There was a story in the Chicago area many years ago of a family whose children burned up before the eyes of the husband and wife. The children were in the family van and that van had hit a piece of metal that dropped off a semi driving in front of them, piercing their gas tank and starting the fire. By the time that Mr. Willis could pull the van over to the side of the road it was engulfed in flames. He and his wife got out and he attempted to rescue his children, suffering severe burns in doing so, but to no avail.

 

He and his wife could only watch as their children burned before their eyes. Mr. Willis and his wife worshiped God on the side of that road as he knew that his children were being welcomed into heaven. How does one survive such an ordeal as one moment he is travelling along happily with his wife and their six youngest children, and moments later he is watching those six children burn before his eyes? He does by knowing that God is sovereign and loving and that his children will be with him for eternity, and that he and his wife will one day join them there.

 

That is the same hope of salvation is one that the family of a murder victim can have as well. It doesn't take away all of the pain of the loss, but it does provide hope beyond the loss.

[LNC]

I'm trying to go in order of posts, but I just can't get over this.

 

Christians believe that before Jesus, some people obtained salvation for being righteous, which means following God's law.

 

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.

 

WTF?

 

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?

 

???

 

Phanta

 

The Bible never says that a person can be justified before God by keeping the Law. It says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. David repented of his sin and was forgiven. The Law was never meant to be a means of salvation, it was meant to help the Jews to live better lives, but it was also meant to show them that they needed a savior and redeemer as no one can keep the Law perfectly, which was the only way that a person could be justified through the Law. People were saved by trusting in God in the OT times just as we are saved by trusting in Jesus in NT times.

[LNC]

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.

 

How do you know that there is no hell? Jesus spoke of hell more than he did of heaven and the church wasn't formed yet, so your explanation doesn't fit with history.

 

I am very familiar with John Shelby Spong and saw this program when it first aired. Isn't it interesting that in trying to sound so humble, he sounds so condescending to those who believe the Bible that he claims to represent? He gives no evidence of his belief and, in fact, doesn't explain why Jesus spoke so much about hell. I don't agree with much of what Spong teaches as I think his hermeneutic is tortured.

 

Somehow, I would have guessed that you put yourself on God's do-not-call list, but maybe I am mistaken .

[Deva]

How do you know that there is no hell? Jesus spoke of hell more than he did of heaven and the church wasn't formed yet, so your explanation doesn't fit with history.

 

I am very familiar with John Shelby Spong and saw this program when it first aired. Isn't it interesting that in trying to sound so humble, he sounds so condescending to those who believe the Bible that he claims to represent? He gives no evidence of his belief and, in fact, doesn't explain why Jesus spoke so much about hell. I don't agree with much of what Spong teaches as I think his hermeneutic is tortured.

 

Somehow, I would have guessed that you put yourself on God's do-not-call list, but maybe I am mistaken .

 

 

How do you know there is a hell? Not a scrap of evidence outside of what the holy book says. How do you know the doctrine of hell was not formulated by the early church? Jesus didn't write the words in the New Testament. There is no date for when the early church was formed.

 

Since you claim to be a Christian, I find your last sentence offensive, even though it was not directed at me. God has no "do-not-call" list if you really believe he is a god of love.

[LNC]

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.

 

Could you tell me in what way I have insulted atheists on this site? I am not here to insult and if I have done so, I will apologize for doing so. So, if you could cite instance where I have done so and to whom these comments have been directed, then I will apologize for them.

 

I believe that I have tried to answer most of the posts directed to me, with the exception of some that were just rants and name calling, those I tend to skip over as there is nothing worth responding to in those cases.

 

I believe that some on this site have taken positions other than Christianity and hardcore materialism. I believe that HanSolo has said that he is a panentheist (if memory serves me) and I am sure that others have expressed some degree of belief other than these two options, so no, I don't see everyone in one of the two categories, or just assume that everyone falls into one of the two.

 

There are a lot of people here who seem to be convinced that the resurrection didn't happened, yet, I don't think that it necessitates that they contact the head of every major Christian denomination to try to convince them that the resurrection didn't happen or that Christianity is wrong (in their eyes). If I believed that Ehrman hadn't been engaged with these arguments from others, then I would contact him, but I know that he has engaged with the likes of William Lane Craig, Daniel Wallace and others, so my voice wouldn't add any new information that they haven't conveyed to him.

 

Is there a reason that you consider challenges to your ideas to be akin to harassment? You are free to ignore these threads and to refrain from posting to them, yet, somehow you seem to continue reading and interacting, so I don't know that you feel so harassed as you say. There are plenty of other threads on this site that could keep you occupied if this one seems to be too irritating to you.

[LNC]

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.

 

Couldn't the same be said of all of you who take so much time to respond to my posts and challenge my ideas? I didn't start this site, but look at the types of posts that are here. It seems that many (not all) are here to be supported and to support others in their views. This is not meant to be a slam, just an observation.

[agnosticator]

But the mass murderer who comes to believe in and love Jesus, say on his deathbed, whose sins are washed away, and who dies and goes to heaven...has not paid a penalty in this life. If I understand you, he is not going to pay in the next. I mention this because you have said many, many times in this thread that a wrong done in this life that is not paid one way or another--in this life or the next-- is the mark of an unjust God/universe. What do you make of this?

 

The mass murder who truly repents and trusts in Jesus is not paying for his or her sin either, that is done by the death of Jesus. So, whether the repentance happens early in the person's life or on their deathbed, the payment is still made by Jesus. The person who remains unrepentant will receive justice in the afterlife, while the repentant receives mercy because of Jesus' payment on their behalf.

 

Sorry, I can't resist....

The serial killer's murdering acts are forgiven, while the unbeliever's lawful acts are meaningless because this person, who never hurt anyone, will be punished. I call this cruel, capriciousness, and unfair in the least. But who am I to question a dictator and protector of serial killers...

[Mriana]

If we don't have free will, then we are all wasting our time with this discussion. Yet, I don't find too many people on this site that act as if free will didn't exist, including you.

 

I don't even know what free will is. Xians throw those words around, yet they don't allow others, esp their own children a choice. Esp with children, it is either believe or else the rather of their parents come down on them. What the heck is that? That isn't a choice, that is for sure. If that is free will, then who wants anything to do with it after they grow up and start thinking for themselves? From what I gather, free will is not a choice, but rather a judgment call by Xians, which is not the dictionary's definition.

[Mriana]

Ugh, yes. Heaven does sound rather dreadful. But then, I'm not sure of what worshipping Jesus entails. What will this worshipping entail?

 

Heaven will not be dreadful for those who have trusted in Jesus, it will be...heaven. There will be other activities in heaven; however, the main focus will be knowing the God of the universe more and more each moment, while never being able to know him fully. The more we know the more we will want to worship him. It will be like discovering new and exciting aspects of God all the time and having more and more joy and excitement with each discovery. I think we all know the joy of discovering new places, knowledge, understanding, etc. and how exciting and joyful that experience can be. That will be what heaven will be like and one will never grow weary of learning these new ideas.

 

Sounds dreadfully boring to me. Who wants to live forever and ever? After a while it would get very old and what keeps your fictionalized place from being over populated?

 

 

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.

 

How do you know that there is no hell? Jesus spoke of hell more than he did of heaven and the church wasn't formed yet, so your explanation doesn't fit with history.

 

I am very familiar with John Shelby Spong and saw this program when it first aired. Isn't it interesting that in trying to sound so humble, he sounds so condescending to those who believe the Bible that he claims to represent? He gives no evidence of his belief and, in fact, doesn't explain why Jesus spoke so much about hell. I don't agree with much of what Spong teaches as I think his hermeneutic is tortured.

 

Somehow, I would have guessed that you put yourself on God's do-not-call list, but maybe I am mistaken .

 

The idea of hell came from previous myths. Not only that, it is a method to control people and it seems the Church has done very well in doing that over the centuries. Tortured? How could saying that people should live life fully, be all they can be, and to love wastefully be tortured? It sounds quite reasonable to me and what a better thing to preach than to say we are not fallen, but rather we need to strive to be fully human? Spong is without a doubt a humanistic Christian, without being a superstitious lout. Something I can respect. I cannot respect Fundamngelicals though because they degrade humans.

 

Do not call list? On the contrary. I dare people like you to bury themselves with their cell phones and call me to tell me all about it after they die. My number? Oh since he knows all, he knows my number. You can get from your so-called god after you die.

 

One last thing... You are insulting. Very insulting, even to our intelligence.

[Mriana]

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.

 

Could you tell me in what way I have insulted atheists on this site? I am not here to insult and if I have done so, I will apologize for doing so. So, if you could cite instance where I have done so and to whom these comments have been directed, then I will apologize for them.

 

I, personally, have pointed out one way you have been insulting. See my post above. I doubt you are sincere about your apology and don't apologize for me. Apologize for yourself to others and make is sincere and genuine.

 

I believe that I have tried to answer most of the posts directed to me, with the exception of some that were just rants and name calling, those I tend to skip over as there is nothing worth responding to in those cases.

 

Right.

 

I believe that some on this site have taken positions other than Christianity and hardcore materialism. I believe that HanSolo has said that he is a panentheist (if memory serves me) and I am sure that others have expressed some degree of belief other than these two options, so no, I don't see everyone in one of the two categories, or just assume that everyone falls into one of the two.

 

Of course we have taken positions other than Xianity. For example, I'm a humanist and a pantheist. One can be both. I believe Dawkins called pantheism "sexed up atheism". I rather like that. Hardcore materialism? No. I'm hardly a hardcore materialist.

 

There are a lot of people here who seem to be convinced that the resurrection didn't happened, yet, I don't think that it necessitates that they contact the head of every major Christian denomination to try to convince them that the resurrection didn't happen or that Christianity is wrong (in their eyes). If I believed that Ehrman hadn't been engaged with these arguments from others, then I would contact him, but I know that he has engaged with the likes of William Lane Craig, Daniel Wallace and others, so my voice wouldn't add any new information that they haven't conveyed to him.

 

Is there a reason that you consider challenges to your ideas to be akin to harassment? You are free to ignore these threads and to refrain from posting to them, yet, somehow you seem to continue reading and interacting, so I don't know that you feel so harassed as you say. There are plenty of other threads on this site that could keep you occupied if this one seems to be too irritating to you.

 

I don't contact anyone. Most Xians come to sites like this to convert and from what I can tell, that is your mission too, whether you admit it or not. Why else would you be here answering various questions? To attempt to evangelize is a form of harassment, IMO. What I don't like and one of the reasons I have not said much on this thread, are people who think they know all, when they don't know anything. They are indeed like the blind men and the elephant, esp when they believe they know. Those who say, don't know and those who know, don't say. You've said a lot- about God, the resurrection, heaven, etc- yet said very little.

[Mriana]

Couldn't the same be said of all of you who take so much time to respond to my posts and challenge my ideas? I didn't start this site, but look at the types of posts that are here. It seems that many (not all) are here to be supported and to support others in their views. This is not meant to be a slam, just an observation.

 

And Xians don't have the same sort of sites? Please spare me. Yes, I am on a rant now because you seem to have the idea that Xians don't have similar sites and that you know everything about Xianity and a deity. I hate to inform you of this, but what you know is only your concept and maybe few others who share your views, and you want to spread the word about it to those who don't agree with you. Why else would you be here?

[mwc]

There was a story in the Chicago area many years ago of a family whose children burned up before the eyes of the husband and wife. The children were in the family van and that van had hit a piece of metal that dropped off a semi driving in front of them, piercing their gas tank and starting the fire. By the time that Mr. Willis could pull the van over to the side of the road it was engulfed in flames. He and his wife got out and he attempted to rescue his children, suffering severe burns in doing so, but to no avail.

 

He and his wife could only watch as their children burned before their eyes. Mr. Willis and his wife worshiped God on the side of that road as he knew that his children were being welcomed into heaven. How does one survive such an ordeal as one moment he is travelling along happily with his wife and their six youngest children, and moments later he is watching those six children burn before his eyes? He does by knowing that God is sovereign and loving and that his children will be with him for eternity, and that he and his wife will one day join them there.

 

That is the same hope of salvation is one that the family of a murder victim can have as well. It doesn't take away all of the pain of the loss, but it does provide hope beyond the loss.

 

The Willises view their faith as instrumental in their adjustment to life after the accident.

 

"We understand that trials come," Mr. Willis said. "If our faith is not tested, then it is empty."

 

Mrs. Willis recalled the words her husband said as they escaped the flaming vehicle: "Janet, this is what we've been prepared for."

 

Even in the wake of such tragedy, the couple remain optimistic. Although he and his wife lost six children, they said that in a few years the family will be large again.

 

Mr. Willis said his daughter Amy is expecting a baby and the wives of his two sons Toby and Dan are pregnant, too.

 

"We will laugh and smile with tremendous memories of our kids," Mr. Willis said.

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YRQVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZQMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6675,4999753&dq=mr+willis+chicago+van+fire+six+children

 

The Willises had sued several parties in the fatal accident.

 

Many of those defendants agreed in August to a $100 million settlement with the Willises, but another, M&S Transport Inc., refused to join in. M&S is the company that inspected the trailer eight days before the crash.

 

http://www.dailypress.com/news/national/chi-991005license,0,4664532.story

 

A Chicago couple who lost six children in a van fire almost five years ago in Milwaukee accepted an extraordinary $100 million settlement Thursday in their lawsuit arising from the case.

 

"The heartache will always be there, but we have the joy of the Lord -- and 15 grandchildren," the Rev. Duane Scott Willis told reporters as he held hands with his wife, Janet, following announcement of the settlement.

 

While not the largest dollar amount ever in a wrongful death case, experts said they knew of nothing directly comparable in the Chicago area.

 

"This is by far the largest auto settlement that we have reported -- it's a monster," said John Kirkton, editor of the Cook County Jury Verdict ...

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6730027.html

He seems to usurp his eldest children's kids as replacements for his own.

 

He also does it with the help of some human justice and at least $100 million.

 

He does it by turning all his energies to this effort and then by taking support from all the church people who don't seem to connect these two items together.

 

If this was all simply done via "faith" then all he'd have to do would just sit back and "trust" (as per the word) and let "god" handle it all but that's not what happened at all. He did a great many things. Not out of "faith" but out of necessity.

 

For example, if I had any "faith" in "god" I would simple wonder why you didn't know all of this already for surely "god" would have made sure that this information had already made its way to you including all that wasn't publicly available (ie. those things that the Willises must have done on their own) but it seems only the "fluff" piece is known to you (and, yes, I've read it or a variation of it).

 

mwc

[bdp]

"Mr. Willis and his wife worshiped God on the side of that road as he knew that his children were being welcomed into heaven."

 

This sentence chills my blood and turns my stomach.