Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[mwc]

"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.

Yours too?

 

I had visions of child sacrifice dance through my head. A couple kneeling and praying before a fiery alter van with 6 kids.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

It was God's will to kill the kids and make them sue and get rich. Nothing soothes the heart as God and a large amount of money.

 

Honestly, if they were happy and content with the children going to Heaven, how can they sue for "Wrongful Death?" The kids aren't dead, they're just in Heaven, and it was all God's will anyway. So was God wrong?

 

Religion like Christianity does make people into robots, give them a skewed view of reality, and a corrupt morality. This is obvious to us, but not to the robots in the Christian cult.

[dagnarus]

The Bible never says that a person can be justified before God by keeping the Law.

Ezekiel 18

5But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

 

6And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

 

7And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

 

8He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

 

9Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

 

Luke 10

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

 

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

 

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

 

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

 

I don't know it seems to be implying here that you can be righteous before god by keeping the law.

[agnosticator]

It was God's will to kill the kids and make them sue and get rich. Nothing soothes the heart as God and a large amount of money.

 

Honestly, if they were happy and content with the children going to Heaven, how can they sue for "Wrongful Death?" The kids aren't dead, they're just in Heaven, and it was all God's will anyway. So was God wrong?

 

Religion like Christianity does make people into robots, give them a skewed view of reality, and a corrupt morality. This is obvious to us, but not to the robots in the Christian cult.

 

Yes, I was thinking similar thoughts as I was reading about this tragedy. On the one hand, the parents trust the biblegod in the midst of the terrible event, then the other shoe drops and they aggressively go after money. But how do they think it to be god's will to sue? The almighty dollar, with the oxymoronic IN GOD WE TRUST becomes important, while their trust in the biblegod dissipates. "God will provide" really doesn't mean anything.

 

They are blinded by their convoluted and compartmentalized thoughts. Maybe deep down, they really don't believe what they think they believe. Otherwise they would accept the situation as god's will and leave it at that.

[Mriana]

LNC, honest questions now, some of which would require some hard thinking for you to answer- how is it God's will that the children burned in the car? Why would a "loving" god allow it to happen? IF he is all powerful and all loving then why didn't he save the children's lives just as a loving parent would do? IF he loves his people than why would he test the parents' faith in such an abhorrent act? Why attribute such a thing so a supposed loving and powerful deity? Why would anyone conceive of and worship such a barbarous being, esp one who supposedly loves all his little children and is powerful enough to stop such a thing? Could it be that people still have child-like mentality and expect a parental figure to help and save them from such things? Could it be that such wishful thinking during times of helplessness that people make-up such a being due to this desire to have parental figure as adults? What good is such a fantasy when the end result is still a loss of family and no god interceded to help them during times of helplessness? What psychological value is there in congerring up a being that is suppose to be all loving, all powerful, all knowing, when one still ends up like Job? Childless. New children cannot replace the previous ones, contrary to Xian thinking that dates back to Job and before. They are not the same children, but totally different beings. Jephthah did not end up with a new daughter that was just like the last one that he sacrificed to God due to his promise. So what good is it to kneel and pray before a fiery altar and pray to a supernatural deity that does nothing to save one's children? Where is the psychological value in that? Seems to me it would cause psychological damage and even mental health issues, which it often has.

 

That is a lot to ponder and come up with honest and realistic answers, I know, but a lot to think about even so.

[dagnarus]

It was God's will to kill the kids and make them sue and get rich. Nothing soothes the heart as God and a large amount of money.

 

Honestly, if they were happy and content with the children going to Heaven, how can they sue for "Wrongful Death?" The kids aren't dead, they're just in Heaven, and it was all God's will anyway. So was God wrong?

 

Religion like Christianity does make people into robots, give them a skewed view of reality, and a corrupt morality. This is obvious to us, but not to the robots in the Christian cult.

 

Yes, I was thinking similar thoughts as I was reading about this tragedy. On the one hand, the parents trust the biblegod in the midst of the terrible event, then the other shoe drops and they aggressively go after money. But how do they think it to be god's will to sue? The almighty dollar, with the oxymoronic IN GOD WE TRUST becomes important, while their trust in the biblegod dissipates. "God will provide" really doesn't mean anything.

 

They are blinded by their convoluted and compartmentalized thoughts. Maybe deep down, they really don't believe what they think they believe. Otherwise they would accept the situation as god's will and leave it at that.

 

Especially seeing as how the bible discourages lawsuits in 1 Cor 6 (at least between believers, which in the US is a safe bet), specifically stating "why not rather be wronged, why not rather be defrauded".

[Deva]

"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.

 

I agree. It is disgusting and seems almost inhuman. The result of many years of brainwashing and makes me question how much they loved their children.

[Deva]

What psychological value is there in congerring up a being that is suppose to be all loving, all powerful, all knowing, when one still ends up like Job? Childless. New children cannot replace the previous ones, contrary to Xian thinking that dates back to Job and before.

 

That's a good point Mriana. A new batch of children seems to be perfectly adequate to replace the ones who have died. Another example of how unrealistic and out of touch with real human psychology the Bible is. And this is supposed to be a guide for living? I think not.

[Ouroboros]

"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.

 

I agree. It is disgusting and seems almost inhuman. The result of many years of brainwashing and makes me question how much they loved their children.

They're supposed to love God more than their children, that's Biblical. Just think about how Jesus say things about "let the dead bury the dead," and "if you don't hate your father and mother and follow me..." The message is rather clear, Jesus/God is supposed to come first. The church I used to belong to took this quite seriously and they preached it frequently. It was hard to accept, and hard to follow, and I was glad the day we left, because I love my family very much, and now I can feel that love without guilt, and express it without condemnation.

 

And they call themselves "moral"? They cherry pick the verses that sounds good just to fit in into society. "Do to others...", "Love thy neighbor..." etc, but they never cite "hate your father and mother...", or "I have not come to bring peace but to bring war..." (something like that). They can try to wriggle as much as they want, but if they read the former literally, then they have to read the latter literally too. A True Literalist Fundamentalist must Hate his family. If the interpretation is that it's not really "hate", but just "don't love them as much," it's still dysfunctional for society and family, and then we shouldn't read "neighbor" or "do to others" as literally either, but they mean "love they dog" and "don't do things you don't want to." Their yes should be yes, and their no should be no.

[Deva]

A True Literalist Fundamentalist must Hate his family. If the interpretation is that it's not really "hate", but just "don't love them as much," it's still dysfunctional for society and family, and then we shouldn't read "neighbor" or "do to others" as literally either, but they mean "love they dog" and "don't do things you don't want to." Their yes should be yes, and their no should be no.

 

Yes, and this hatred of family is contrary to nature and normal human psychology. Yet they prattle on about "family values". The whole doctrine is sick.

[Mriana]

What psychological value is there in congerring up a being that is suppose to be all loving, all powerful, all knowing, when one still ends up like Job? Childless. New children cannot replace the previous ones, contrary to Xian thinking that dates back to Job and before.

 

That's a good point Mriana. A new batch of children seems to be perfectly adequate to replace the ones who have died. Another example of how unrealistic and out of touch with real human psychology the Bible is. And this is supposed to be a guide for living? I think not.

 

That's my point exactly. It is bad psychology, unhealthy psychology to be exact.

 

"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.

 

I agree. It is disgusting and seems almost inhuman. The result of many years of brainwashing and makes me question how much they loved their children.

They're supposed to love God more than their children, that's Biblical.

 

Again, that does not contribute to good psychological health. Add to that, it is dehumanizing. It dehumanizes and degrades not only the children, but the meaning of life and how precious life really is. It has contributed to many deaths- both suicide and homicide- due to this degrading and dehumanizing of human life. It takes out the preciousness of life, regardless whether or not this is the only life we have. Life is a gift, not of some divine being, but from our parents. It is our parents and other human beings who decide our ultimate fate, not some supernatural being. Such mentality, as that taught in such religious beliefs systems, is extremely unhealthy.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and this hatred of family is contrary to nature and normal human psychology. Yet they prattle on about "family values". The whole doctrine is sick.

It sure is. Did you read the responses from Rayskidude in the other thread? Personally I think correcting your children using violence of any kind is morally wrong. There are studies showing that it leaves psychological scars. (Several families I know where the son was abused into obedience as a child, hates their father and rather stay away from him as far as possible--on the other hand, I was never physically harmed as a child, and I loved my dad (who now is gone), and I respected him, his values, and his opinions, and I miss him greatly) But this Rayskidude consider it morally correct and recommended to hit your children if they disobey, as long as you do it in the "Biblical way." (Whatever that is. Perhaps the Biblical way is with a leather belt, or perhaps it's with a thick stick? Perhaps an ironrod works too? Who knows. As long as it doesn't show at school and you get arrested for child abuse, I guess it's morally right!? ) It's sick. Sick. Sick.

[Deva]

It sure is. Did you read the responses from Rayskidude in the other thread?

 

I haven't got enough time left in my life to read all of Ray's Bible quotes, but I can just imagine. My Christian dad didn't hesitate in using the belt on his kids when he saw the need for it.

 

Result - I have a very distant relationship with him and my mother, now. No, physical violence is not called for.

[Shyone]

It was God's will to kill the kids and make them sue and get rich. Nothing soothes the heart as God and a large amount of money.

 

Honestly, if they were happy and content with the children going to Heaven, how can they sue for "Wrongful Death?" The kids aren't dead, they're just in Heaven, and it was all God's will anyway. So was God wrong?

 

Religion like Christianity does make people into robots, give them a skewed view of reality, and a corrupt morality. This is obvious to us, but not to the robots in the Christian cult.

When good things happen, it's God's will; but when bad things happen, they sue someone. What happened to "it's God's will"?

[Mriana]

Yes, and this hatred of family is contrary to nature and normal human psychology. Yet they prattle on about "family values". The whole doctrine is sick.

It sure is. Did you read the responses from Rayskidude in the other thread? Personally I think correcting your children using violence of any kind is morally wrong. There are studies showing that it leaves psychological scars. (Several families I know where the son was abused into obedience as a child, hates their father and rather stay away from him as far as possible--on the other hand, I was never physically harmed as a child, and I loved my dad (who now is gone), and I respected him, his values, and his opinions, and I miss him greatly) But this Rayskidude consider it morally correct and recommended to hit your children if they disobey, as long as you do it in the "Biblical way." (Whatever that is. Perhaps the Biblical way is with a leather belt, or perhaps it's with a thick stick? Perhaps an ironrod works too? Who knows. As long as it doesn't show at school and you get arrested for child abuse, I guess it's morally right!? ) It's sick. Sick. Sick.

 

Stoning. Remember there is something about a defiant child and taking out behind the wood shed... er um out of town and stoning him?

 

It sure is. Did you read the responses from Rayskidude in the other thread?

 

I haven't got enough time left in my life to read all of Ray's Bible quotes, but I can just imagine. My Christian dad didn't hesitate in using the belt on his kids when he saw the need for it.

 

Result - I have a very distant relationship with him and my mother, now. No, physical violence is not called for.

 

Yes, I agree. Violence is not the answer. In all honesty, there are no family values in the Bible, not even in the NT. One either loves Jesus or loves their family. They cannot follow Jesus if they cannot leave their family and neglect them.

[Neon Genesis]

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.

Isn't calling Spong condescending like saying someone who is intolerant of racism is a bigot to racists?

[agnosticator]

I haven't got enough time left in my life to read all of Ray's Bible quotes, but I can just imagine.

 

Imagine no more...

HanSolo:

The Old Testament have a law that unruly and disobedient kids should be stoned to death.

 

 

Exo 21:14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.

Exo 21:15 "Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Exo 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Exo 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

 

Lev 20:7 Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.

Lev 20:8 Keep my statutes and do them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

Lev 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

Lev 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

 

Rayskidude's answer:

 

Apparently God considers these matters in a much more serious light than many people do - and it's clearly more than just being unruly and disobedient when we see the context. Is God wrong to have a high standard of conduct for His people?

 

 

Rayskidude on the rod and the child:

 

Physical discipline done Biblically does not have long-term psychological effects, it immediately teaches the consequences for sinful behavior. It is not immoral, and not against the law for parents (Thankfully). But, do you know this long-term psych harm from personal experience?

 

Note that all discipline is for instruction in righteous living, and is designed to be conducted in love by those who love the children and desire for them righteousness, restoration, redemption, etc.

[Mriana]

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.

Isn't calling Spong condescending like saying someone who is intolerant of racism is a bigot to racists?

 

Was I suppose to address that too in my P.O.'d response to LNC? I didn't call him condescending, LNC did, but if he is condescending to Fundamngelicals, what am I? But yes, it is right up with calling someone intolerant of racism a bigot to racists. I think saying that LNC was insulting to many was more than enough. IF I were still Episcopalian, I would have added that LNC was also insulting to Episcopalians too and in all honesty he was that too. If one were to say anything about Bishop Spong, it would be, IMO, he is a potential/possible bridge between non-theists and theists. I could have given LNC a whole lot more than I did, if I had wanted to do so. I could have played both sides of the fence with him.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Was I suppose to address that too in my P.O.'d response to LNC? I didn't call him condescending, LNC did, but if he is condescending to Fundamngelicals, what am I?

I didn't mean that you were saying Spong was condescending or that you had to address it. I was just commenting on LNC's hypocrisy. Sorry for any confusion.

[Mriana]

 

 

Was I suppose to address that too in my P.O.'d response to LNC? I didn't call him condescending, LNC did, but if he is condescending to Fundamngelicals, what am I?

I didn't mean that you were saying Spong was condescending or that you had to address it. I was just commenting on LNC's hypocrisy. Sorry for any confusion.

 

It's OK. LNC is definitely acting like a hypocrit. And does he know Spong doesn't believe the Bible in his own interpretation of it? I don't think LNC has dug deep enough into Spong to know what Spong believes. I can tell you, Jack doesn't believe in any sky daddy that holds his hand through life, but he does have a god concept and does believe in the resurrection, albeit as symbolism. The man is also very much the mysticist and a gnostic. He's even called himself a mysticist and I propose that LNC doesn't know Jack about his own religion.

[agnosticator]

It sure is. Did you read the responses from Rayskidude in the other thread? Personally I think correcting your children using violence of any kind is morally wrong. There are studies showing that it leaves psychological scars.

 

I read one book that covers this. It's Philip Greven's Spare The Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and The Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse, here

[Justin]

"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."

 

So that tragedy was a test from god, and one that they had been prepared for? Sick, sick, sick!

[Shyone]

Exo 21:14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.

Exo 21:15 "Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Exo 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Exo 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

 

Lev 20:7 Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.

Lev 20:8 Keep my statutes and do them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

Lev 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

Lev 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

 

I have a question, from a secular atheist perspective.

 

If these laws were creations of humans, how did they serve the community that established and upheld them?

 

Phanta

If you don't punish someone that kills "by cunning," s/he will kill again (e.g. serial killers). Redundant since there are already laws against murder.

Stealing slaves is bad for business.

Adultery causes problems for kids and other adults. Hey, it could be one of my wives he's messing with!

Being religious means you will continue to tithe and support the priestly caste.

Insubordination on the part of the children, to the extent that the parents worry enough to bring this to the attention of the authorities (and have their children killed), means that the kids were a danger to the parents (matricide, patricide). The threat of such punishment would make children obey the parents. I might have supported a law like this to keep my kids in order.

 

'k?

[Shyone]

Insubordination on the part of the children, to the extent that the parents worry enough to bring this to the attention of the authorities (and have their children killed), means that the kids were a danger to the parents (matricide, patricide). The threat of such punishment would make children obey the parents. I might have supported a law like this to keep my kids in order.

 

'k?

 

This was the one I was unsure about, as I've been cursed at and struck by children, and not feared for my life.

 

You are saying that it is only if the parents feel their lives are in danger from physical violence and (?) swearing (or do they mean casting spells?) that they were to be punished for these things?

 

Phanta

It's only a guess, but consider that it would require the parents to turn their children in. I suspect it was more of a threat to hold over the children's heads than a commonly used punishment. Disincentive, if you will.

 

But the "casting of spells" could be another thing; superstitious people believing in spells might have codified that into law.

 

I do know of a number of cases of "children" who were young adults (teenagers) who were violent, abusive and have even murdered their parents, so I'm not sure that there wasn't mostly a call for protection from the law as a means of enforcing family discipline.

 

If you study "weird laws" from various states, you get an idea of where some laws come from. One incident, and you've got a law. One town in California has a law that you can't wear cowboy boots unless you own at least two cows.

 

I say, "Amen"!

[agnosticator]

Exo 21:14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.

Exo 21:15 "Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Exo 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Exo 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

 

Lev 20:7 Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.

Lev 20:8 Keep my statutes and do them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

Lev 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

Lev 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

 

I have a question, from a secular atheist perspective.

 

If these laws were creations of humans, how did they serve the community that established and upheld them?

 

Phanta

 

Actually, I was quoting the verses Rayskidude posted in another thread. I messed up the presentation.

 

Since these laws are old religious ones, I can only speculate. I don't think they served the community very well since they were based on a god's demands and fortified by fear and extreme punishment. It may have kept the peace through fear and violence, not just for violent criminal acts, but for non-violent lesser offenses. The punishment didn't fit the crime. But back then (and even today), the Middle Eastern religious mindset was insane by today's standards. So maybe it helped maintain peace and also group cohesiveness. Beyond that, it just supports the closed-mindedness and inhumane treatment we still see today in the Middle East where they kill at the drop of a hat.

 

Shyone has some good thoughts about this.