Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[NotBlinded]

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?

HA! Yes indeed. They like to play the persecution card even when they believe things that gets them persecuted. If one can't include the group that does the excluding then that's just wrong.

[Shyone]

 

That's hilarious.

 

Did you know 3 people in the same room with their shoes off in Mass. is an orgy (WOW, according to Mass. law, I have participated in an orgy! ). I went to college in Mass., and we always got a kick out of that one.

 

Phanta

I love it! It's really not much stranger than Leviticus or Deuteronomy though, or the code of Hammurabi from whence comes many of the Biblical laws.

[Shyone]

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.

The severe punishments are a carry over from the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians. Almost word for word. "Draconian" comes from Dracos, a Greek leader, but the ancient Mesopotamians had laws just as "Draconian."

 

There being no God besides An, the Father of the Anunnaku, Yahweh is a weak god who was too soft on his people.

[Neon Genesis]

On the subject that was brought up before in the thread about how now no one would die for a lie, I did think of one example that's contrary to this claim. In WWII, there were Germans who would lie to the government about hiding Jews in their home and were willing to die for their lie that they were not hiding Jews in order to hide them. Sine LNC says no one will die for a lie, is LNC admitting he would be the first to turn the Jews over to the authorities if he lived in WWII times?

[agnosticator]

There being no God besides An, the Father of the Anunnaku, Yahweh is a weak god who was too soft on his people.

 

I sure am glad I wasn't around then!

[Antlerman]

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.

I don't believe it's for the same reasons. People here who go after the types of arguments that are being foisted upon them by apologists are doing so largely for reasons of sorting out the tangled mess of logic fallacies and bad information that they themselves bought into. I enjoy seeing apologists who come here insistent on their point of view being the singular answer, because they afford those who are needing to empower themselves through rational thought against those who would deprive them of that, an opportunity to voice their own thoughts.

 

The big difference is that for the most part I don't see us trying to prove to you that we are right. Whereas, the same cannot be said from the apologist side. I don't need you to see the logic of my thoughts to validate my beliefs to myself. I have learned there is truth in many perspectives, not just one. And to argue for one is to be stuck in a rut and a loss to what can be known and experienced.

 

Honestly, it's my belief that its for that very reason that most every one of us here left what you are striving to defend so tenaciously. And that's why it's doomed to failure. It's nothing new. It offers nothing new. You have studied arguments. I'm not interested in a good faith apology. It misses the point and limits potential. It had its place in my life for that time, and for that I'm thankful, but as Paul says, "When I was a child I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things."

 

To me the efforts to be an apologist, let alone get a Masters Degree in it, is to focus ones energies into something that will only yield a tragically limited harvest. But then again, not everyone cares to go to the next level and is content in the foothills, or they need to believe that it will work for them in order to learn it won't - which is my story. I too was an avid apologist who strove to have air-tight "answers" like you. I recognize it for what it is.

 

So what are your thoughts about emergence anyway, as opposed to what some apologist taught you? I won't discuss this scholar versus that scholar. I'm interested in how you think.

[dagnarus]

On the subject that was brought up before in the thread about how now no one would die for a lie, I did think of one example that's contrary to this claim. In WWII, there were Germans who would lie to the government about hiding Jews in their home and were willing to die for their lie that they were not hiding Jews in order to hide them.

 

This is different from dying for a complete fabrication. An accurate parallel in holocaust context would be Germans admitting to--and dying for--hiding Jews when those Germans knew the only thing they ever hid was house cats. If you know of any Germans who actually did this or similar, they were likely mental.

 

Phanta

 

Personally I'd compare it with Joseph Smith. After Smith's enemies had inspired the local populace to put Smith on trial with some bloodthirsty rhetoric (based upon Smith's dodgy dealings) Smith originally intended to do a runner, and I believe was away free by the time his followers convinced him to return to stand trial on the basis that the fact that he was running made him look guilty. On his way back reportedly he said "If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself." showing that he realized that his death was, if not immanent at the very least likely. All this of course lead to his being lynched before the trial.

 

Anyway the point is I don't think that Joseph Smith died for a lie. I think he died to safe the public face of being a prophet which he had created based upon a lie. If he had of been willing to admit that he was just a con-man he would have been able to leave to reasonable safely, but because he was playing the part of Godly Prophet he went to what would be his death.

 

How do we know that the disciples didn't go to similar deaths (ignoring the fact that we don't even really know they were martyred), maybe the were put into a position where they either had to give the charade up and live or, keep their face and risk death and in the end their face was just to important to them. For all we know the romans authorities were only interested in them over the matter of Ananias and Sapphira winding up dead or something similar, and what we have now is simply the spin which has been put on their deaths over the generations, as no doubt the Mormons have and will continue to attempt to do with Smith's death.

 

I'm not saying that the disciples had to have been corrupt, but if you look at their successors throughout history it really isn't a stretch.

[Legion]

Yo dog, this thread is 56 pages long.

[Antlerman]

Yo dog, this thread is 56 pages long.

And still going... I expect it will hit 100 by mid-October. It will end when its ready to on its own. In the mean time, it most clearly has value evident by continued interest in it.

[LNC]

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.

 

There are many accounts in the Bible that were believed to be false history until archeology confirmed the history contained therein. So, yes they were recording history and those historical accounts were falsifiable. Can you provide evidence that Jesus was not a historical person (as it seems that you are claiming)? Or, are you merely making assertions that fit with your a priori assumptions? I am curious as to how and why you seem to consider these accounts to be ahistorical?

 

You are right that the Bible is a collection of writings as Bible comes from the root word that means collection or library. That fact actually adds to the credibility as there are multiple sources who attest to the same accounts. But again, I am curious as to why you consider these writings to be ahistorical and what evidence leads you to that conclusion.

[LNC]

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.

 

Thanks for your input and welcome to the discussion.

[LNC]

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.

 

I don't think you have properly understood Christianity and its message. Actually, man is the vehicle and often we are driving the vehicle destructively and God is the one who is not only warning us (via the Holy Spirit), but also rescuing us when we call out to him for help. You are right in that sin is what we are doing in driving destructively, often fatally. I don't know how God can be responsible for the decisions that we make, maybe you could explain that to me. The warning is only a threat when we ignore it and continue as if we are not in danger. The fact is that God took on human flesh so that we could be rescued from ourselves.

[LNC]

1. I wasn't using the idea of cult to show that Christianity is untrue.

2. The term cult is typically a term of derision used against the minority by the majority religions. The psychological and sociological properties of a cult, while interesting, are just a smokescreen. "Cult" is really a political term.

3. Once the political aspects and the socio-psycological aspects of "cults" are separated, it becomes apparent that there is no substantive difference between "mainline" or accepted religions and cults. Perhaps there is a difference of degree, but the same tricks and processes used to isolate "cult" members from the rest of the world are used to isolate church members from the rest of the world: conditioning to hold contradictory and irrational beliefs, threats of exclusion, guilt, threats of eternal doom and pressure NOT to expose oneself to non-Christian literature and media.

 

What becomes apparent is that Christianity is not special. Sure, it has its own distinctive teachings the way Buddhism or Islam has its own distinctive teachings. But the processes that bind and enslave individuals to the religion are essentially no different between what is commonly referred to as cults and the mainline, socially accepted denominations of Christianity.

 

Does this disprove christianity? No. Not per se. However, I have heard preachers on more than one occasion proclaim the uniqueness of christianity as part of attempts to evangelize people. What my point about cults shows is that christianity is not unique. It derails a faulty evangelistic approach.

 

OK, so you have told me what a cult isn't, but you haven't really told me what you believe a cult is, maybe you could give me more detail as to what you mean specifically.

 

There are very distinct differences between Christianity and other religions. First, Christianity is the only worldview in which God takes on human flesh to die for the sins of his creation. Second, Christianity is the only worldview that is not works based in regard to the afterlife. IOW, you cannot earn the afterlife in Christianity whereas with other religions a person must earn it (assuming the religion teaches that the afterlife exists, which not all do). Third, there is no enslavement, per se, with Christianity other than what the Apostle Paul taught of a "voluntary" enslavement. However, that is different from what most consider enslavement (which is involuntary). These alone are major distinctives between Christianity and the religions of the world, so I don't think you have derailed the unique nature of the Christian worldview.

[Mriana]

There are many accounts in the Bible that were believed to be false history until archeology confirmed the history contained therein.

 

Archeology has shown the Bible to be true or confirmed the history therein either. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it isn't from historians or archaeologists.

[bdp]

I can see archaeology confirming existence of locations, but how can archaeology confirm a particular bible account of a given incident?

[oddbird1963]

1. I wasn't using the idea of cult to show that Christianity is untrue.

2. The term cult is typically a term of derision used against the minority by the majority religions. The psychological and sociological properties of a cult, while interesting, are just a smokescreen. "Cult" is really a political term.

3. Once the political aspects and the socio-psycological aspects of "cults" are separated, it becomes apparent that there is no substantive difference between "mainline" or accepted religions and cults. Perhaps there is a difference of degree, but the same tricks and processes used to isolate "cult" members from the rest of the world are used to isolate church members from the rest of the world: conditioning to hold contradictory and irrational beliefs, threats of exclusion, guilt, threats of eternal doom and pressure NOT to expose oneself to non-Christian literature and media.

 

What becomes apparent is that Christianity is not special. Sure, it has its own distinctive teachings the way Buddhism or Islam has its own distinctive teachings. But the processes that bind and enslave individuals to the religion are essentially no different between what is commonly referred to as cults and the mainline, socially accepted denominations of Christianity.

 

Does this disprove christianity? No. Not per se. However, I have heard preachers on more than one occasion proclaim the uniqueness of christianity as part of attempts to evangelize people. What my point about cults shows is that christianity is not unique. It derails a faulty evangelistic approach.

 

OK, so you have told me what a cult isn't, but you haven't really told me what you believe a cult is, maybe you could give me more detail as to what you mean specifically.

 

There are very distinct differences between Christianity and other religions. First, Christianity is the only worldview in which God takes on human flesh to die for the sins of his creation. Second, Christianity is the only worldview that is not works based in regard to the afterlife. IOW, you cannot earn the afterlife in Christianity whereas with other religions a person must earn it (assuming the religion teaches that the afterlife exists, which not all do). Third, there is no enslavement, per se, with Christianity other than what the Apostle Paul taught of a "voluntary" enslavement. However, that is different from what most consider enslavement (which is involuntary). These alone are major distinctives between Christianity and the religions of the world, so I don't think you have derailed the unique nature of the Christian worldview.

 

This was the request to which I was replying:

 

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?

 

Uh - - It looks as if you are not knowledgeable of the very questions that you asked. As you can see above, you were not asking me to define a cult. It looks as if you are throwing out a red herring because I did, in fact, address your question. Perhaps you need to go back and read the interrogative material that you write a little more closely.

 

Your next paragraph misses the point and shows a complete state of denial about the nature of Christianity as it is practiced today. People are enslaved. You need to go back and read the testimonies of people who have left Christianity. Don't insult them by imposing a quick dismissal and pat answer to explain away the experiences they went through. You will find that there are many churches in Christianity, most conservative ones, actually, that enslave their people by the very processes I described. Since you seem to easily miss these points, I have underlined a sentence for your convenience.

 

The type of slavery of which I speak is a mental process that is experienced to one degree or another in Christianity. It is a common practice among religious groups of every faith. To deny this is to display denial and fear before the entire world. You are trying to dodge this point by subtly bringing in a christian theological nuance on the concept of slavery. What I am described is a common, socio-psycological process.

 

Your list of distinctives is a set of talking points and sales pitches that you find energizing about christianity and perhaps potential converts do too. But , remember, each major world religion has its apologists with their own talking points. You guys can fight it out amongst yourselves. My point was the psychological conditioning shared by accepted churches and spin-off cults, distinctive only by the degree of practice.

 

Sorry, LNC. But you fail to grasp the point that was successfully made in response to your question.

[Neon Genesis]

Didn't Zeus become a human, had sex with a woman, and gave birth to Heracles?

[mwc]

Third, there is no enslavement, per se, with Christianity other than what the Apostle Paul taught of a "voluntary" enslavement.

 

mwc

[Mriana]

Didn't Zeus become a human, had sex with a woman, and gave birth to Heracles?

 

Well, close. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I do believe you are close to the story idea.

[Antlerman]

I can see archaeology confirming existence of locations, but how can archaeology confirm a particular bible account of a given incident?

 

I saw a NOVA special on the OT called The Bible's Buried Secrets. Archeologist finds confirm or give strong evidence for the existence of places and people (as with the Merneptah Stela, and the likely location of the palace of David), and can also give some support to parts of stories. For instance, some of these places showed evidence of massive burning at a time and place described in the Bible.

 

Biblical archeologist William Dever has some interesting things to say in his interview. This jumped out at me:

 

Dever: The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

 

Q: Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.

 

Dever: We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

 

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

 

Phanta

Yes, I have one book by Dever, I believe it's "Who Were the Early Israelites. I have another by Finklestein (whom Dever chides over supposing the pre-monarch Israelites were nomads). All this is very true as he says it, as the majority of scholars agree, and disagree with LNC and his phony quote-miner tricks from what's his name whom he bases his apologetic on .

 

This is a fact that is glossed over by the Evidence crowd, that writing historical records is outside the scope of the Biblical writers. They were stories. According the Dever, it's only after the stories of the Monarchy that you are getting more factual, verifiable events happening. This whole business of relying of faith that it was written and supervised by the god YHWH from his celestial editor's desk, is pure fantasy of a child's imagination and has no place whatsoever in a discussion with intelligent people. None of this can be taken seriously as accounts of accurate history. That's wishful think to the nth degree.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Well, close. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I do believe you are close to the story idea.

I remember reading this in Thomas Paine's The Age Of Reason. He brought up that the Greek gods became humans all the time and I think it was Jupiter he said would frequently become a human and have sex with virgins.

[Mriana]

I can see archaeology confirming existence of locations, but how can archaeology confirm a particular bible account of a given incident?

 

I saw a NOVA special on the OT called The Bible's Buried Secrets. Archeologist finds confirm or give strong evidence for the existence of places and people (as with the Merneptah Stela, and the likely location of the palace of David), and can also give some support to parts of stories. For instance, some of these places showed evidence of massive burning at a time and place described in the Bible.

 

The stories are probably no more true than John Jakes' North and South. There was a Lincoln, but he probably didn't say over half the things Jakes attributes to him and there are and were the place he mentioned in his book, but the actual characters and events, except the Civil War and other major events, probably didn't happen.

 

Dever: We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

 

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

Phanta

 

Exactly, much like John Jakes.

[Auracle]

 

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

 

The cake is a lie!

 

[mwc]

I just noticed that the two cats in your avatar look nearly like mine. A calico and an all black cat. And it's the calico that usually does something stupid to start a fight. It's a sign!

 

mwc

[LNC]

Indeed. This response from you goes back to something I said 12 days ago. In the meantime, there are overlapping daily dialogs layered on top of this. You'll later run into something I said and respond to it, then I'll have moved on to something else by then, and so forth.

 

One of the reasons I haven't expended the sorts of time for a really meaningful discussion here, besides being busy with work, is because the flow of discussion is stilted because of these time shifts. It makes it frustrating to make any real effort with what time I have available because of this feature, having to jump back and address an thoughts that were put out there 2 weeks ago, in many cases assuming you have read what came after and working off that premise.

 

Perhaps I might consider a one on one with you. Even if it's 2 week delays, at least the dialog is stopped there while waiting for your response. There's part of me that believe meaningful discussion is possible, but the circumstances frustrate that.

 

Yes, sorry for the delay in responding, but with a few threads going at the same time along with everything else in life, it is hard to keep up. There is only one of me and so many who are commenting on my posts - I get behind quickly. I would enjoy one on one chats when you want to start them, just let me know.

 

It was somewhat tongue in cheek, but irony is only funny because it has a basis in truth. Quote mining is a prolifically used technique by the apologists from Creationist sites (such as AiG), plus a whole plethora of other bad hermeneutics in order to support their assumptions. All any one needs to do is look to any particular group of Christians quoting a verse to support their views, while the next church quotes the same verse to support their opposing view.

 

You cite going to the originals to find the true meaning, but they do this as well, such as the JW's quoting the Greek in John 1:1 to show that Logos with the definite article should be translated "a god", then you have others who say the definite article is in the anarthrous (non-articulated) form and therefore denotes the nature of the Logos as Theos, or deity. And so on, and so forth. Same verse, original Greek, different opinions. No absolute truth. Each reading it to support their beliefs.

 

Hard work doing research to see the truth, seems a blatant contradiction to the faith's basic premise which is to believe with the heart, not the head. Though you can argue that this belief of the heart can be justified by looking at the evidence, everything that we and many other scholars are showing is that it is anything but as clear as all that. The evidence you offer is highly disputable, and beyond that, seems rooted more in logic arguments than anything else.

 

My whole argument that could be taken as a defense of your faith, is that its a logic error to take something whose basic nature is about faith, and put it on the examining table for a scientific dissection. I know it may seem tempting to attempt to elevate it as scientifically credible in order to garner respect, but the opposite happens. You turn it into something that its not, never was about, and never can be.

 

You look to make it a cohesive whole to answer all areas of Western Philosophical interests (morals, metaphysics, and epistemology), but this at best idealistic but is forced and fails in practice. Attempts to make it address metaphysics results in irrational efforts of denial of facts, rather than a genuine pursuit of human discovery. It's religious faith tenants will feel compelled to make it non-contradictory at the expense of true understanding. What this results in is a mental, physical, and spiritual prison. Not salvation.

 

Regarding the proper interpretation, I think we can both agree that there can only be one proper interpretation which means that others are false. There is also a proper method of interpretation and we can determine whether a person has used that proper method. It is more science than art, although there are rare times when some art has to be applied as well, but always led by the science.

 

In regard to the JWs, they clearly add an article to John 1:1 that they don't add later in the chapter under the same circumstances, so they are not consistent nor true to the original Greek. No legitimate Greek scholar agrees with their interpretation. The one that they commonly quote said that he never interpreted John 1:1 the way that they said he did. IOW, they fabricated the reference.

 

I think that you have put up a straw-man understanding of what faith means in the Bible in order to build your case. If you look at how the Apostle Paul preaches the gospel, he never divorces it from evidence. He always references accounts that they either know first hand or know to be reliable. He encourages the Bereans because they are fact-checking him when he preaches. He preaches to Felix and Festus about things that they "know to be true." No, Paul never says, "just believe and have (blind)faith." In fact, the word for faith, "pisteuo", means conviction or trust and implies a tangible object of that conviction or trust. People don't have convictions or trust independent of an object for those convictions or trust.

 

I don't believe that the evidence is highly disputable unless one brings certain presuppositions to the argument that would disqualify them a priori. Yet, those presuppositions also must be tested for validity and if found to be without grounds or foundation, they must be given lesser weight in considering the evidence. For example, if one discounts certain evidence due to an a priori assumption that the supernatural does not exist and yet has not justified that presupposition, then evidence that includes supernatural elements cannot be justifiably eliminated from consideration. That does not mean that the person will not eliminate these pieces of evidence anyway, but they are not adequately justified in doing so and to do so would not make that evidence necessarily disputable.

 

Now, another error that I believe that you make is to consider all knowledge to be subject to "scientific dissection." I am not sure if you are merely speaking metaphorically or if you mean that all evidence and knowledge is subject to scientific inquiry. If the latter is the case, then I believe that you are mistaken. Scientific first principles themselves are not subject to scientific dissection and therefore would have to be jettisoned. For example, the principle of causality cannot be scientifically dissected, nor can the principle of uniformity; yet, these are foundational to science and to jettison them would be to jettison the whole scientific enterprise. There is knowledge that is true knowledge, yet not subject to such scientific dissection, including the foundations for logic and mathematics, also critical to scientific investigation.

 

I take it by your answer that you don't believe that there is a cohesive integration of morals, metaphysics, and epistemology. You will have to explain to me how the pursuit of metaphysics leads to irrationality and denial of facts. Which facts would those be? I think that I can integrate these key areas of philosophy into a coherent whole that corresponds with reality, but I would need more detail as to why you feel that this is a wasted effort.

 

When it does what I just explained, it does. Moreover, it's not so much 'trying to understand God', that I said or meant. But trying to 'define' God. Created theologies that give these anthropomorphic views of a God with a specific set of rules and codes, plans and time lines, choices and decisions, desires and griefs, etc, etc, makes the idea of God something more like a glorified humanity than something truly transcendent.

 

The idea of God as a nature or principle that we should aspire to have and express within ourselves holds far more relevance and inspiration than theologies of sin and blood sacrifice. God being primarily symbolic holds far greater power, then God being a Being up there we have to appease. I could go on, but that gives a brief take on it.

 

How can one limit an omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent being simply by trying to understand him? However, it seems that you have to understand something about God in order to make your assertion, so it seems to be a self-defeating claim. When we are "defining" God, we understand that we are not giving an exhaustive definition as that is impossible for a finite mind; yet, we do claim to be giving a meaningful definition as we understand God's revelation of himself, if only a partial revelation.

 

Now, it seems in your second paragraph that you contradict yourself by defining God as nature or principle, while rejecting theologies that involve blood and sacrifice. Maybe it is not the defining of God that you find troublesome, but the definition given of God that doesn't sit well with you. For to even consider God to be symbolic is to give definition to God, a more limiting one at that. Which is more limited so say that something exists or to say that something is only symbolic? I would say that the latter is more limiting than the former for to exist in reality is greater than to exist as mere symbol. What say you?

 

I'll be happy to make an effort at dialog. The vitriol of the site goes with the territory. The Colosseum is more for serious discussion. Maybe I'll pull our discussions out of this one and start a separate thread. I'm just hesitant to commit myself too much with my other commitments at this time. I would prefer to focus on what I've been touching on this about the nature of faith, and in the later posts I've made that you probably haven't caught up to yet. I think the whole focus on evidence and logic is misplaced.

 

That would be great. I enjoy the discussion when we stick to the arguments; however, when they devolve into name-calling, I find them to be meaningless. I would enjoy the discussion on the nature of faith as I think it is an important and highly misunderstood topic today.

 

Hans already addressed this pretty well in what he said in response. What I will add to this is that, despite the analogy having some flaws - such as Deva pointed out that it would be God who was driving the car, the more important issue is a matter of good form. It is not clear-cut issue, and people outright dispute your beliefs that there is even any car at all, and under those circumstances, it is disrespectful to dismiss them having a legitimate disagreement with you about it and proceed to issue warnings to them of horrific consequences to them if you are right! In short, it's rude, offense, and arrogant towards others. Claims that it's not your words, but the Bible's is a deflection of responsibility. There are plenty of Christian groups who see it saying something entirely different that what your group has adopted out of the possible interpretations.

 

That you believe it true is your issue, but it doesn't give you the right to disrespect others over what is clearly a disputable belief and use language that is intimidating. That is not a very Christian thing to do, even if you think you have the 'facts'. I have the belief that to spend one's life believing that hell exists does a vast amount of harm to them, and I could easily scream, "Stop! You're throwing your life away and you will die never having lived!", or worse, "If you don't think like me, there will be dark supernatural beings waiting for you on the other side who will subject you to endless terror!" But it's your life to live and your choice of what to believe. Belief in the car is a choice, not a fact.

 

I don't think that it is relevant who is driving the car when the rules of traffic have been ignored and a person jaywalks in heavy traffic. God is the one who offers the rescue plan and that rescue plan is free to anyone who wants it. There is no cost, but a person must receive it, it won't be forced on anyone. Now, whether people dispute how I interpret the Bible is also irrelevant, it is the proper interpretation of the Bible that is important. There are people who dispute whether the material world exists, so we evaluate their claims and determine whether they have the right interpretation or not, we don't simply say that all interpretations are equally valid - that would be illogical and lead to nihilism. The same should be done in interpreting the Bible. There are rules of interpretation, called hermeneutics, that can be applied to determine whose interpretation is the right one. I don't think it is disrespectful to dismiss wrong interpretations just as it is not disrespectful to dismiss the person who says that the material world does not really exist. To say that a person has a legitimate disagreement is to say that their interpretation of reality could be equally valid, and I don't think that is the case when the rules are applied properly.

 

Again, I qualified my statements by saying if the Bible is true and my statement does follow from a plain interpretation of the Bible. So, I am sorry if you consider that to be rude, but I could say that same about your calling me rude in that honest people disagree as to whether what I said is true and therefore to call me rude, offensive and arrogant is to pronounce that I am wrong and that has not been established. Therefore, you seem to be guilty of that of which you accuse me in this case.

 

I will say again, that if the plain understanding of the NT is correct, then I am not being rude, I am being kind in warning people. I don't mean it to be intimidating any more than a doctor means to intimidate his patient when he tells him he has cancer and must seek immediate and intensive treatment. I think it would not be kind of the doctor to withhold that information and allow the patient to die of the disease. It is interesting that you say that I am acting in a way that is "not very Christian" when I am simply obeying the Great Commission and the final words of Christ before he ascended back into heaven. He said "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” I am simply doing what he told his followers to do, being his witness. That seems to be very Christian as it is following what Christ told me to do.