Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[agnosticator]

Glad I'm not the only who enjoyed that scene. The other one was where Judas sang "Heaven on their minds". That one was good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNoiQ8LkS8

 

Yeah, a golden "oldie"!

[agnosticator]

And then, when I read this:

 

Finally, process philosophy’s pantemporalist, panexperientialist position stands as a clear alternative both to reductionistic, materialistic nontemporalism, and to temporal-nontemporal, mind-matter dualism.

 

I knew that I needed another cup of coffee.

 

Maybe you were right. It's Monty Python's Ontology of The Transcendent Cheese in the Cheese Shop.

[NotBlinded]

 

Take a peek: Time and the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness

Ok, I took a look. The premise and description of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness has relevance to how Christians misperceive the world. Beyond that, the whole thing begins to sound like solipsism:

 

"Those holding this position have tended to speak of time as an illusion." Yeah, and I'm not older than I was when I was young... Right.

 

And then, when I read this:

 

Finally, process philosophy’s pantemporalist, panexperientialist position stands as a clear alternative both to reductionistic, materialistic nontemporalism, and to temporal-nontemporal, mind-matter dualism.

 

I knew that I needed another cup of coffee.

Shyone? Did you cherry pick?

 

That view was of one group only and was used as contrast.

 

A second position is this: From this point of view, it is arbitrary to say that time is unreal simply because it is not reflected in the “fundamental (timeless) laws” of the universe.

 

And saying that time is unreal, arbitrarily, is to commit the fallacy. To not see time in quantum physics and say it doesn't exist is making the abstract concrete. What one needs to ask when looking at "things" is not only why, but where and when also. Time is an important factor as well as location.

 

The illusion of time is rejected here. It's a non-dual approach to reality.

[Shyone]

 

Shyone? Did you cherry pick?

 

That view was of one group only and was used as contrast.

 

A second position is this: From this point of view, it is arbitrary to say that time is unreal simply because it is not reflected in the “fundamental (timeless) laws” of the universe.

 

And saying that time is unreal, arbitrarily, is to commit the fallacy. To not see time in quantum physics and say it doesn't exist is making the abstract concrete. What one needs to ask when looking at "things" is not only why, but where and when also. Time is an important factor as well as location.

 

The illusion of time is rejected here. It's a non-dual approach to reality.

Of course I cherry picked. I was reading the article, and I came across a number of different ideas, some of which were presented and then refuted (like the quote I picked). But Jesus, people actually think that way. And the final summation was built on the concepts that were presented earlier, and I don't really want to even seriously consider such concepts. It's not worth my "time".

 

Even the sentence you chose is meaningless to me. I could have picked any quote from virtually any sentence and it would have sounded just as mind-numbing.

 

The fallacy makes sense. Beyond that, not so much. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be thinking about such stuff, but when I try to "engage" things like that I wind up stripping my mental gears.

[NotBlinded]

 

Of course I cherry picked. I was reading the article, and I came across a number of different ideas, some of which were presented and then refuted (like the quote I picked). But Jesus, people actually think that way. And the final summation was built on the concepts that were presented earlier, and I don't really want to even seriously consider such concepts. It's not worth my "time".

 

Even the sentence you chose is meaningless to me. I could have picked any quote from virtually any sentence and it would have sounded just as mind-numbing.

 

The fallacy makes sense. Beyond that, not so much. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be thinking about such stuff, but when I try to "engage" things like that I wind up stripping my mental gears.

I found it fascinating and thought you might too. Sorry 'bout that.

[LNC]

And, why would God punish the snake, and all snakes in the future, because of the Devil possessing it? Did the snake has a choice? Are we talking about punishable actions, free will, and morality applying to an animal here? Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

As a warning to the rest of us. Snakes are not moral agents and so did not have a moral choice.

[NotBlinded]

And, why would God punish the snake, and all snakes in the future, because of the Devil possessing it? Did the snake has a choice? Are we talking about punishable actions, free will, and morality applying to an animal here? Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

As a warning to the rest of us. Snakes are not moral agents and so did not have a moral choice.

A warning?? So, it's okay to punish something that didn't have a choice.

[Ouroboros]

And, why would God punish the snake, and all snakes in the future, because of the Devil possessing it? Did the snake has a choice? Are we talking about punishable actions, free will, and morality applying to an animal here? Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

As a warning to the rest of us. Snakes are not moral agents and so did not have a moral choice.

And talking snakes only exists in fables, so of course stories with them are not real historical stories either.

 

But yet the snake was punished in the story. It wasn't a moral agent, but judged as such by God. Why?

[Shyone]

 

I found it fascinating and thought you might too. Sorry 'bout that.

No need to apologize. It's my limitation, not yours. I'll tell you one thing; I respect your intellect. Anyone that can read this AND understand it is really, really smart.

[Antlerman]

And, why would God punish the snake, and all snakes in the future, because of the Devil possessing it? Did the snake has a choice? Are we talking about punishable actions, free will, and morality applying to an animal here? Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

As a warning to the rest of us. Snakes are not moral agents and so did not have a moral choice.

 

 

 

 

You're joking, right?

[Antlerman]

SPECIAL POST ALERT

 

 

 

 

 

IT'S BEEN TOO LONG.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

HERE IT IS ONCE AGAIN.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RationalOkie]

Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

Snakes in ancient cultures represented deceipt. A snakes forked tongue points in two different directions. This is where we get the expression 'talking out both sides of your mouth'. In England many years ago they had thatched roofs. Thatch is like long grass that had pretty descent R-Value and was everywhere in England. In the Spring in England it is still cold and it rains a lot. The small animals would go up on the thatched roofs to get warmth from the heat escaping the Thatched roofs. During these cold rains the animals would slip and fall off of the roofs. People would say, "It's raining cats and dogs".

 

Jesus died.....the end!

[Ouroboros]

Snakes in ancient cultures represented deceipt. ...

Jesus died.....the end!

Haven't you heard about Jeeesssszzzzusssss Crotalus?

[RationalOkie]

Snakes in ancient cultures represented deceipt. ...

Jesus died.....the end!

Haven't you heard about Jeeesssszzzzusssss Crotalus?

 

END! END! END! No Part Deux! He is noooo more! Fini' Kapput! Daaaaaayed!

[Ouroboros]

END! END! END! No Part Deux! He is noooo more! Fini' Kapput! Daaaaaayed!

Oh no, the snake Jesus is alive and slithering.

[mwc]

Snakes in ancient cultures represented deceipt.

I would say that more often than not snakes were associated with wisdom in ancient cultures. I don't know about Medieval culture.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

I would say that more often than not snakes were associated with wisdom in ancient cultures. I don't know about Medieval culture.

And healing, if I remember right. That's why the snakes on a staff in the caduceus, and why the copper snake on the stick in the Old Testament supposedly healed people.

 

[Mriana]

And, why would God punish the snake, and all snakes in the future, because of the Devil possessing it? Did the snake has a choice? Are we talking about punishable actions, free will, and morality applying to an animal here? Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

As a warning to the rest of us. Snakes are not moral agents and so did not have a moral choice.

 

Oh yes. That's right. And so the venomous Evangelical Fundies are not moral agents? Thus a brood of vipers in and of themselves. Nevermind. You'd probably never get my childhood thinking when I heard my minister great uncle preach on this, but IMO, that is what many Evangelicals are. A brood of vipers and they fit the snake analogy and alike very well.

 

 

And, why would God punish the snake, and all snakes in the future, because of the Devil possessing it? Did the snake has a choice? Are we talking about punishable actions, free will, and morality applying to an animal here? Perhaps Jesus died for the snake too?

 

As a warning to the rest of us. Snakes are not moral agents and so did not have a moral choice.

And talking snakes only exists in fables, so of course stories with them are not real historical stories either.

 

But yet the snake was punished in the story. It wasn't a moral agent, but judged as such by God. Why?

 

Oh I don't know, HanSolo, maybe the talking snakes are the Fundamngelicals. Think about it, along with RationalOkie's post.

[Ouroboros]

Oh I don't know, HanSolo, maybe the talking snakes are the Fundamngelicals. Think about it, along with RationalOkie's post.

Yes, could be. It could also be the kind of Christians who try to mix worldly wisdom and belief, and create arguments like the Kalaam to justify their religion because they've lost real faith.

[Antlerman]

Oh I don't know, HanSolo, maybe the talking snakes are the Fundamngelicals. Think about it, along with RationalOkie's post.

Yes, could be. It could also be the kind of Christians who try to mix worldly wisdom and belief, and create arguments like the Kalaam to justify their religion because they've lost real faith.

Arguments like Kalaam, and all of LNC's approach, are the result of not knowing how to advance their religion to meet the world of critical knowledge. The response is to try to make their religion fit that world through trying to make it 'rational' on that level. But because it's a case of fitting a rectangular-shaped block into a star-shaped hole, they can never actually fully incorporate critical reasoning into it, but only give the appearance of it through the misuse of it (hence why it's built on logic fallacies, and we see example after example of it, i.e., 'the vast majority of NT scholars agree...').

 

It's not so much that they've lost real faith, its more that they can't take that system of belief and incorporate it into today's world. They are conflicted, and this is all an exercise in futility. It's more a matter of their faith is not ready to face what reason reveals. The Anti-intellectual response to this confrontation is actually more consistent than this style of apologetic trying to make it rational.

 

Meanwhile... we're all moving ahead.

[NotBlinded]

 

I found it fascinating and thought you might too. Sorry 'bout that.

No need to apologize. It's my limitation, not yours. I'll tell you one thing; I respect your intellect. Anyone that can read this AND understand it is really, really smart.

Thank you

 

I must come back and say that honestly, I don't understand all of it. When he talks about different orders of the fallacy, I'm lost.

[NotBlinded]

SPECIAL POST ALERT

 

It's been a long time since I've seen that!

[Ouroboros]

...'the vast majority of NT scholars agree...'

It's quite interesting to check the numbers of this "vast majority." Was it like 70% only that believed the Gospels to be telling the true story? So 70% is a vast majority, but then if we go to Evolution, where something like 99% support the current theory, then suddenly it's not vast enough to agree with Evolution. It shows (in LNC's own words) an a priori assumption to his approach.

 

It's not so much that they've lost real faith, its more that they can't take that system of belief and incorporate it into today's world.

I think losing faith to some degree is part of it, because if you believe without evidence, then you're not really searching for evidence or arguments. But when people go into a very deep philosophical journey to find the answers, it hints to a form of panic, i.e. their belief isn't enough anymore.

 

They are conflicted, and this is all an exercise in futility.

Yup. It's a battle inside them, because they can't make the circle close. The pieces won't fall into place and they have to search it somewhere else.

 

Thought: why would a Christian need an outside explanation, argument, or reason to believe? Isn't the Bible and the Holy Spirit enough? Isn't that what Paul said, "you don't need a teacher"? And yet here we see a perfect example of someone searching the truth outside of the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

 

And it seems like this is the reason why the Kalaam has been prohibited by some Muslim leaders:

The place of kalam in Islamic thought has been controversial throughout history. Many traditional Sunni Muslim scholars have criticized or outright prohibited it, including the well known "Four Imams". Abu Hanifa prohibited his students from engaging in kalam, stating in his view that those who practice it are from the "retarded ones."[1] Malik ibn Anas referred to kalam in the Islamic religion as being "detested"[2], and that whoever "seeks the religion through kalam will deviate".[3] In addition, Muhammad Shafi'i said that no advice on knowledge of Islam can be gained from books of kalam, as kalam "is not from knowledge"[4][5] and that "It is better for a man to spend his whole life doing whatever Allah has prohibited - besides shirk with Allah - rather than spending his whole life involved in kalam."[6] Ahmad ibn Hanbal also spoke strongly against kalam, stating his view that no one looks into kalam unless there is "corruption in his heart,"[7] and even went so far as to prohibit sitting with people practicing kalam even if they were defending the Sunnah,[8] and instructing his students to warn against any person they saw practicing kalam.[9]

(From Wiki: link)

 

It's more a matter of their faith is not ready to face what reason reveals. The Anti-intellectual response to this confrontation is actually more consistent than this style of apologetic trying to make it rational.

Yes. Several religious philosophers consider pure fideism, without reasoning or arguments, to be the true form. If there were enough evidence and arguments to overcome doubt, then belief becomes knowledge. Belief is somewhere between doubt and knowledge in a sense. Knowledge as being a strong belief, which is justified by reasonable, or even undeniable, support. Doubt as the lack of belief.

[Neon Genesis]

Abu Hanifa prohibited his students from engaging in kalam, stating in his view that those who practice it are from the "retarded ones."

Truer words have never been spoken.

[NonXNonExX]

My favorite philosophical quote on time comes from Bob Dylan, "Oh, but i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now." It took me a long time to figure out what that meant, but for some reason the quotes you gave us seemed to make sense to me right away.