Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[RationalOkie]

You have got to be fucking kidding me! So much for our governor and the bunch of freakin' loones that occupy the congress. We can't even vote them out because of damn religious lunatics here. Even if he did veto it, it would have been overridden. I hope they get sued. They say it based on a history of laws which came from England, which came from Moses. My ass!! The ten commandments is based an a monarchial society and English laws are common laws. Freakin' idots...

 

 

It sucks living here doesn't it? Where the wind comes sweeping through their brains......

[NotBlinded]

You have got to be fucking kidding me! So much for our governor and the bunch of freakin' loones that occupy the congress. We can't even vote them out because of damn religious lunatics here. Even if he did veto it, it would have been overridden. I hope they get sued. They say it based on a history of laws which came from England, which came from Moses. My ass!! The ten commandments is based an a monarchial society and English laws are common laws. Freakin' idots...

 

 

It sucks living here doesn't it? Where the wind comes sweeping through their brains......

HA!

[NonXNonExX]

What a great topic. I'll admit i usually do a lot of skimming, especially through posts from dedicated amateur apologists, but i've been following this one very closely and would like to add something from my own experience.

 

My mother's relatives were crazy Catholics who believed everything, but my father's relatives were definitely lightweight Xtians at best. It seemed to me they liked dressing up, seeing their friends and feeling a little holier after attending a service, but were hardly true believers. In fact, i doubt if they could remember anything the preacher said ten minutes after the service. They didn't want to know and didn't care if JC really said or did those things. I'm sure they were not interested in the scholarly debates over the history or historicity of the early church. Whether or not the preacher was being dishonest or not for not discussing the problems with the NT, early church history and the probability that anyone of the NT was true didn't even enter their minds. This seemed to be the case in the Methodist and Lutheran churches i attended when i was growing up.

 

In conclusion, it doesn't matter if a priest or pastor knows he is lying or purposely withholds information because IMO most of the people just don't care.

[Mriana]

These are not simple black and white, true or false, facts versus lies, sorts of issues. They are subtle and nuanced and extremely complex, sociologically, psychologically, philosophically, emotionally, and spiritually. I'm hoping that my comments about are to expose that aspect of it, and in fact help to move away from that sort of thinking ourselves - true/false dictomy. To say that I support deception, or that I have a character flaw in somehow not seeing how 'wrong' they are does not reflect the reality of my thoughts. I'll try to offer some response to individual points later today - as my limited time permits. But I think this as a backdrop might be helpful. There's a million things I can add to this to try to lay some of the context within which I am perceiving this. I can only hope it's not misunderstood that I'm one thing or the other in regards to this. I'm not. It's far more layered than that, which for my sake gives me to see the world in a way that satisfies me for where I am at in all of this.

 

I see what you are saying. These things can be real "meme" busters. I know that from experience, but I asked for it and wanted it. I also knew the risks before I set out due to listening to other priests' experiences. There is a big difference. For someone who doesn't ask for it or even want it, not even realizing just how disorienting it can be, it could be very disturbing for them. The thing is, one does become an "atheist", in some respects, for it all. I don't believe in any god of religion, but I am pantheistic, but that is not the same as believing in God.

 

I should add here to avoid misunderstanding, that my personal views of the best approach in how to deal with your average member of society in these systems is not really reflected above. I don't have solid thoughts about it at this point. But I have concern in the wisdom of racing into your average mother or grandmother in a church and ripping the rug out from under them by righteously shouting one perception of Truth from the rooftops. Sharing ones idea of truth is a beautiful thing in a society, but progress and growth comes through reasoned dialog in proper contexts, IMO.

 

Like I said, I would never disabuse my 64 y.o. mother or 69 y.o. sister or any other person, who has had a lifelong belief in the supernatural. However, I do wish I could tell them what I know and that none of it is actually true. That it is just a means to explain the human condition and it is how those in the past experienced the unexplainable and alike things.

[Antlerman]

 

When I speak of them perceiving that some members of their congregation may not be 'ready' for that sort of exposure (recall as Chef pointed out that they are responsible for a wide audience as well, and have a responsibility to 'minister' to people where they are at, which may require a certain 'dumbing down' of it), it is a matter of recognizing that your average church goer may not be a place with sufficient enough background upon which to build that understanding, simply on hearing it expounded. It could in fact cause a crisis for them instead of helping them. They hear it, and their first thought is "I've been lied to! If it's not true, it's false!" That black and white dichotomy is a difficult issue reflective of a much greater cultural problem.

But isn't it also just as possible for people to come to this crisis left to their own? Isn't that what happened to most of us at ex-c? In my own experience, I came to this conclusion that the bible was not literally true on my own even though my parents' church does their best to distort the facts to "protect" the flock.

I'm not so convinced that their motives were for the purpose of protecting the flock, so much that it is how they choose to believe through the distortion of facts in order to protect their own beliefs. That fits my second definition above of them being sincere in their beliefs, despite that they are existentially 'insincere'. They are deceiving themselves first, and merely promoting their views for the sake of a like-motivated community. I wouldn't call that 'hiding the truth' from them. It's more a case of willful ignorance.

 

When I discovered the truth of the matter about the bible, I was upset and shocked but other than my online friends, I was alone in my journey. I had no one to turn to for support and I couldn't vent my frustrations to anyone. But if I had a church community who knew the same things I did at the time, I could have gotten some emotional support and it could have been an easier transistion out of fundamentalism for me.

My thoughts are that if you had a church community who saw things like you, that these things are not literally true, chances are it wouldn't have been a crisis because you never would have approached it as if it were. You can't feel lied to if you never perceived it was somehow literally true. At that point then, the evaluation of its worth would be on it having some sort of spiritually symbolic value, rather than that being tied in with the assumption of it needing to be a factual representation of the objective world. It's that adopted position of the fundamentalists, that of innerancy, that forces it into the realm of objective reality. As such they destroy it themselves more than any critic of it ever could. LNC's entire effort to make it 'verifiable' for instance, ensures more than anything else it will be entirely rejected. He ties whatever value may lay inside it, to its outside looking as he and those he follows imagine it should according to their own rational.

 

So while I agree some people may be very shocked and frightened by the new information, isn't it better for them to have a church community that's going through the same thing for them to turn to for support rather than have to go it alone because the church is trying to "protect" the flock from finding out what the church already knows?

What you're talking about is a different church community than yours. It would be one whose fundamental assumptions were strikingly different. It would be a church that was willing to expose themselves to looking at things differently. If that sort of church was in your area, then perhaps you may have found some support there, or not. But it's not just a matter of recognizing the Bible as fallible and human, its a whole shift in how to look at it altogether. The liberals I know have no problem with it having contractions, or recognizing the mythological elements of it, because it being historic and scientifically factual or not is an irrelevant question.

 

I don't believe your church leadership is able to inform their flock of that which they themselves are unwilling to expose themselves to.

 

It's like when a parent tries to hide the fact that they're going through a divorce from their child but the child finds out anyway. The child might be more troubled if they find this out on their own and had no one to turn because the parents didn't want to talk about it then if the parents were open and honest about the divorce with their kid.

You're wishing they would have told you something that weren't willing to face themselves.

 

How does a minister who is more philosophically aware (not the typical Evangelical again), having gone through a long and likely painful process of himself pushing through these issues, suddenly reshape this dualistic mindset that permeates society in the members of his congregation, all at once from young to old? To simply "shout the truth from the mountain tops!" without proper context can in fact work against them.

 

In my thinking, if that minster sincerely believed that there was value in the myth, it would make more sense to try to speak to them through the mythic structure, allowing the symbolism of it to take them to a higher sensibility, one that moves them out of the ethnocentric/sociocentric nature of that simple mythic membership caters to. To that minister, he sees the church as a social entity through with society can come together and grow in the larger context of the world as it changes and progresses. He sees it as a service to them. He is sincere, even if he doesn't open the flood gates on those with an average exposure to these areas - which isn't very much.

 

But how helpful would this really be? Doesn't this sort of method usually turn into a disaster? Like take this case in politics where people are being lied to by politicans about conspiracy theories and having their emotions manipulated to support an agenda. What if the people then find out later that they were lied to and it was all a sham? Wouldn't they be more angry if they were lied to about the truth than if the people were honest?

Again your looking at this in the context of your particular church which most likely does in fact believe it's true. What I've been talking about, those ones I defined above who have that higher level understanding, are not necessarily lying to their congregations through the withholding of information. I've somewhat gone to lengths to try to explain how that without context, without a proper foundation of understanding to lay the groundwork for a whole paradigm shift in understanding, in that minister's mind that could in fact do a disservice to them. It's not so much a case of distorting facts or misrepresenting them, but seeing it as true on varying levels.

 

For instance, in that minister's mind he may talk about how God delivered Israel through the Red Sea and defeated the armies of Pharaoh. That is a mythological representation of a truth of value in his mind that he feels the congregation will benefit through: that even though we are a seemingly small people, through having faith we can triumph over a entire nation against us. That a member of that congregation may be at a place in their thinking where they take that to mean that minister literally believes this is historic fact, is a matter of their thinking in their minds. Someone else sitting next to them in the pew may realize that 'these are simply stories', but one's that tell a lesson through them. In both cases, what did the preacher represent? That this was a story of real history? Or was he simply telling the story and two different people understood it differently in the context of 'objective' reality, but likely very similar symbolically.

 

The question then, which comes back to what I wanted to get at yesterday, is at what point should he have a lesson about the symbolic versus literalness approach? At what point is he responsible to 'set the record straight'? Here's a couple thoughts on that. Again, coming back to what I said in my other post about people 'not being ready'. I'm hoping this isn't taken as insulting to any, but everyone is at a different stage of development. There is not some magic, "You're an adult" point where you suddenly shift your way of thinking into some same mode of thought as all others. In fact, most people are still thinking in mythic terms in looking at the world, and there are those who frame it in more rational terms. If someone is a mythic thinker, then trying to communicate the world in different terms is nigh impossible to do, just as a mythic thinker can't get someone who sees the world as magical, ie., 'my thoughts cause the wind to blow', to understand it as caused by some outside agent, "God" in this case.

 

So how does the minister who wishes to 'minister' to both the mythic thinker and the rational thinker communicate? Is he going to be able to cause them to develop by simply shouting the truth from a rational perspective at them? What happens when you tell a developing young person that the shadow isn't following them, but that the sun outside hitting them is causing the shadow to be cast? A blank stare? I added a new quote to my sig line that says "What we are, that only can we see." If you are still a magical thinker, you can't see the world as mythical; if you are a mythical thinker, you can't see the world as rational, and so on.

 

So is it lying, or patronizing, etc to try to speak to someone to where they are at, if the hope is communication? People come when they are ready, they hear when they are ready, just as we all did. Ones chronological age has little to do with this. If it did, then there would no longer be any adult anywhere imaging supernatural beings causing things to happen in their lives. That's mythical thinking. Someone's worldview is framed, not merely by their individual cognitive development, but the context of their shared worldspace - their culture. Our culture is in the process of emerging still. It is not a comment on individuals, as much as where we are at as a social species.

[Mriana]

It's my belief that context is everything. Someone's openness to receiving knowledge that challenges these structures of worldview in which they navigate life, is nothing that suddenly presents itself along with the information. It may appear to them that the 'revelation' suddenly came and all was changed, but that change was happening long, long before the 'revelation' came.

 

Change is a process, sometimes happening rapidly, but the groundwork for it was being laid for a long time before it suddenly burst through. What we see of course is the moment it hit us, not the foundation that was gradually being laid - unless we consciously examine it on that level. It's that foundation, the context, that has far more value than the truth itself to us that depends on it.

 

Yes, I remember that day I had that 'revelation', 'epiphany'. Now remember, I was wanting it, but I thought I was never going to get that "lightening bolt", that "shock of my life", or other descriptions I had heard about it, and was getting a bit discouraged. Then one day, it just hit me. It was like my brain fainted, but I was still standing. After my brain "came to" again, I realized what had just happened. I had that same experience that Fr. Tom Harpur and so many unknown priests, had. Thing is, I was aware it could happen and I think those who aren't aware of such things, find it a bit unsettling and maybe even feel anger, at least at first. However, that sudden realization did not happen overnight as you mentioned. I had been studying it for almost 20 years by that time.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Again your looking at this in the context of your particular church which most likely does in fact believe it's true.

But even if they don't agree with the arguments, why is it that it seems like most fundamentalist churches don't even bother to learn any opposing arguments? Like, even if they don't believe in the Q gospel, why is it that more churches aren't at least aware that this argument about the Q gospel even exists and teaching their members the arguments for and against it? Like, in the bible study class, some of the Christians knew about the Jesus Seminar but they only brought up that they believe only 10% of the teachings of Jesus are authentic but none of them mention their methods of how they reached that conclusion or anything about Q at all. Go up to any fundamentalist and ask how many of them know what the Q gospel is and the vast majority will likely be clueless about it. Why don't more fundamentalists know about this?

 

Why aren't they at least more familiar with the "sophisticated" fundamentalist theologians like William Lane Craig and NT Wright? LNC may have a distorted view of the Q gospel but even he knows more about biblical scholarship than the Christians at my parents' church do. Most of them have at best only a Sunday school level of knowledge about the bible but even if they don't believe in the secular arguments, it just amazes me how many of them are completely ignorant of the arguments that exist. They're still trying to counter out-dated arguments that atheists think Jesus was just unconscious on the cross that most people don't even use anymore and they're completely ignorant of modern arguments. At the very least, it seems like the leaders are leaving their flock defenseless against these arguments by not informing them about modern day arguments even if they don't agree with the arguments.

[Deva]

Go up to any fundamentalist and ask how many of them know what the Q gospel is and the vast majority will likely be clueless about it. Why don't more fundamentalists know about this?

 

Simple. They don't WANT to know. You couldn't get my Scofield - King- James -only Bible- toting parents to look at anything by the Jesus Seminar or any of the scholars involved if you took a corkscrew to their eyeballs. They are all heretics. Neon, you don't seem to understand that they read the KJV as if it were today's newspaper. They are all in the "priesthood of all believers" so they can interpret it how they like, too. But, then again, of course, the pastor is always right. They are not interested in scholarship or arguments.

[Antlerman]

 

 

Again your looking at this in the context of your particular church which most likely does in fact believe it's true.

But even if they don't agree with the arguments, why is it that it seems like most fundamentalist churches don't even bother to learn any opposing arguments? Like, even if they don't believe in the Q gospel, why is it that more churches aren't at least aware that this argument about the Q gospel even exists and teaching their members the arguments for and against it?

Because they need to keep it simple and not confuse them with a lot of options. "Just stick with this son, and you'll be OK."

 

I suppose it depends on what's important to the parishioners. Churches are after all a business, and if the flock was bothered by these issues, then they might put together some sort of silly 'defending your faith' classes where they do the typical find the faults with it sort of thing, rather than an actually exploration of the scholarship in a considered manner. If the staff bring it up themselves, it may raise more questions than they are willing or prepared to field. (Sorry if I sound uncharacteristically flippant here. I'm running on 2 hours of sleep and feel borderline hallucinogenic right now. Therefore, I'm not responsible for what might come out here. )

 

Like, in the bible study class, some of the Christians knew about the Jesus Seminar but they only brought up that they believe only 10% of the teachings of Jesus are authentic but none of them mention their methods of how they reached that conclusion or anything about Q at all. Go up to any fundamentalist and ask how many of them know what the Q gospel is and the vast majority will likely be clueless about it. Why don't more fundamentalists know about this?

Like I said, what they probably heard about the Jesus Seminar is how sinful it was in that they tossed lots for what were Jesus words, and they were so blind they threw almost all of them out! I speak from experience, because they how I learned about it the first time. There are reasons to be critical of their methods, but not for the reasons that I heard, that they were working off the foolish wisdom of man, and other such clap trap.

 

But what about Q? What if you went up to an average church-goer at a Lutheran church and asked them about Q? Chances are they probably don't even know what books are in the NT itself, let alone Q. But why shouldn't your fundamentalist, who is all about memorizing the books of the Bible, defending their faith, and whatnot? It's probably because it's not viewed as an immediate threat and they're mostly lazy. They're not interested in things that they can't in some way directly use to prove they're right, or in order to attack it somehow because they feel it threatens them.

 

Why should they bother to look at things like that when they've got the truth right there in their hand, personally delivered to them from God via the Jesus courier service and available at their local Northwestern Books store for $19.95? "All I need is what's right here in this here book! The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Don't give the devil a place to put his doubts in you." And so forth.

 

Am I being harsh?

 

Why aren't they at least more familiar with the "sophisticated" fundamentalist theologians like William Lane Craig and NT Wright?

Alright to be fair, not everyone gives a damn about debating their beliefs with someone else, and those sorts of arguments probably just make them uncomfortable. If you just believe, without looking at any criticisms of it all, then you feel you are safer in it. To learn arguments to defend it, means you must learn the arguments against it. That may not be somewhere they care to go.

 

LNC may have a distorted view of the Q gospel but even he knows more about biblical scholarship than the Christians at my parents' church do.

Different things motivate different people. I see those who spend their many hours of their short lives building up better arguments to prove everyone but themselves wrong are motivated by a lack of faith, trying to convince themselves they are right so they can look to that for their confidence. Wrong place to look.

 

They're still trying to counter out-dated arguments that atheists think Jesus was just unconscious on the cross that most people don't even use anymore and they're completely ignorant of modern arguments.

Hah! That's funny. It's a two-fold thing. First they can feel good about themselves by congratulating themselves on how smart they are and how foolish the unbelievers are. And second, they're not interested in anything more current because that tired old stick will fit the bill just fine for the non-discriminating. They have what they need to do that for themselves, the old, "we're right because look at how stupid they all are" argument. They don't need to update it, because nobody's looking out the window at the rest of the world as the all congratulate themselves on being God's special little in-group.

 

At the very least, it seems like the leaders are leaving their flock defenseless against these arguments by not informing them about modern day arguments even if they don't agree with the arguments.

Well, that's a business management problem. They run it in a reactive, crisis management mode rather than a proactive approach. "It's not a problem until it's a problem." "If it 'ain't broke, don't fix it!"

 

 

OK, there you go...

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

But what about Q? What if you went up to an average church-goer at a Lutheran church and asked them about Q? Chances are they probably don't even know what books are in the NT itself, let alone Q. But why shouldn't your fundamentalist, who is all about memorizing the books of the Bible, defending their faith, and whatnot? It's probably because it's not viewed as an immediate threat and they're mostly lazy. They're not interested in things that they can't in some way directly use to prove they're right, or in order to attack it somehow because they feel it threatens them.

It's interesting because I've been reading Karen Armstrong's new book The Case For God and she brings up in her book that fundamentalists used to accept evolution and were more concerned about liberal Christianity and secular scholarship than they were Darwin. They used to know about this sort of thing and be more passionate in arguing against it, but after WWiI, they became more suspicious of science and started concentrating on evolution more.

 

 

Alright to be fair, not everyone gives a damn about debating their beliefs with someone else, and those sorts of arguments probably just make them uncomfortable. If you just believe, without looking at any criticisms of it all, then you feel you are safer in it. To learn arguments to defend it, means you must learn the arguments against it. That may not be somewhere they care to go.

This is true but this past summer, my parents' church have been more actively involved in door to door evangelizing campaigns and my dad has been out on the field spreading the gospels and trying to convert people. I just have to wonder what they would say if they tried to convert someone who argued back using secular scholarship.

[Antlerman]

This is true but this past summer, my parents' church have been more actively involved in door to door evangelizing campaigns and my dad has been out on the field spreading the gospels and trying to convert people. I just have to wonder what they would say if they tried to convert someone who argued back using secular scholarship.

They would revert to some sort of emotional appeal. When reason fails, go for the emotional appeal. That's how it works.

 

 

 

BTW, we're up to page 67 on this thread. Has LNC jumped ship finally?

[Franko47]

There's also the "filtering" phenomenon that I've noticed goes on. Many things are judged on the basis of "threat level" to the "faith", and these things can have different priority depending upon which "street" you're on in the vast Christian metropolis.

 

Currently, Evolution has a high "threat level" for some reason to many Christians; I'm amazed at the amount of deflecting that goes on when trying to get some Christians to even admit to some of the basic facts of dynamic biology.

 

I'm a little amazed at just how much energy is devoted to battling this "dangerous ideology" which is merely bioscience. Many cannot distinguish between that and astrophysics and astronomy; I've had a number of Christians tell me that Stephen Hawking is "all wrong" who don't even know the difference between a star system and a galaxy.

 

The desire to believe that being gay is a sin, but cannot explain why; that the small percentage of gays who wish to marry threaten the entire institution; yet when asked "how, exactly...?" they cannot even begin to give a credible answer that fulfills statistical or even sociological criteria.

 

And who is feeding them this stuff ? Let's circle the wagons to protect and deflect the imaginary dangers from scientific revelation and cultural realities that are never going away ? Like they are going to "win" this "war" against evolution, gay rights, and no, we're not putting formal Christian school prayer back into "public school", thanks. Have we ever seen a time since the sixties where this futile struggle against cultural change has now become the basis for the greatest "spiritual battle" of our time ? (from a Christian standpoint)

 

Even though some clergy and Christian intellectuals I've talked to admit that it's kind of a "Custer's Last Stand" with an inevitable outcome (guess what, WE win), it serves as a rally point, a banding together for faith; an identity of what makes the Christian "different", and so on. Do they honestly think that abortion rights will ever go back and it will be generally illegal once again ? That magically there will be more pressure brought to bear to eliminate internet porn ? Are they kidding ?

 

Is this all a matter of intellectual retardation or emotionalism from what is a huge sector of the current Christian world ? And how does slowly losing the battle against these very "evils" help reinforce faith, except to justify the circumstances for "end times theology" ? Is the current Christian world aiding and abetting their own demise by clinging to hopeless issues that are never going to go their way, except temporarily ? And what is the role of pastors and clergy in this process ? Or does it all just go back to the "unity" motive ?

 

The Pope knew that Galileo was right. His work was verified by his own papal scientists. The recantation and house arrest was for the purpose of preserving order with the flock; an adroit political decision to preserve faith and not rock the boat.

 

Are we seeing this same game being played out yet again ? "Darwin recanted on his death bed". Maybe Dawkins and Hawking will, too. At times I find it hard to believe the system of "threats" dwelled upon by the neo-evangelical-pan-fundamentalist continuum.

 

Hope that this is all relevant to the conversation, here. Hope we don't have to extract "Okie" when he's "rounded up" at the next book burning. This guy ain't kidding; the stuff I've heard from Southern US Christians these days is not just problematic; it's extremism.

 

The religion that can't survive without artificial fears and fabricated hate.

[Shyone]

 

Even though some clergy and Christian intellectuals I've talked to admit that it's kind of a "Custer's Last Stand" with an inevitable outcome (guess what, WE win), it serves as a rally point, a banding together for faith; an identity of what makes the Christian "different", and so on. Do they honestly think that abortion rights will ever go back and it will be generally illegal once again ? That magically there will be more pressure brought to bear to eliminate internet porn ? Are they kidding ?

 

Is this all a matter of intellectual retardation or emotionalism from what is a huge sector of the current Christian world ? And how does slowly losing the battle against these very "evils" help reinforce faith, except to justify the circumstances for "end times theology" ? Is the current Christian world aiding and abetting their own demise by clinging to hopeless issues that are never going to go their way, except temporarily ? And what is the role of pastors and clergy in this process ? Or does it all just go back to the "unity" motive ?

There is a long time in the future, and I have a feeling that, even though we will win the war, there will be a few battles lost.

 

Isolated battles like the Kansas State Board of Education, or in Dover PA. Temporary battles without (hopefully) long lasting consequences. Watch for more important battles. Quite frankly, several justices on the Supreme Court are inches away from fundamentalism. Need I list them? And I'm not too sure about Sotomayor.

 

Watch for "States Rights" as they exercise their right to impose ignorance and place religion "back where it belongs" (and it ain't in the Church).

 

Sorry, I'm a bit pessimistic tonight.

[chefranden]

...And who is feeding them this stuff ? Let's circle the wagons to protect and deflect the imaginary dangers from scientific revelation and cultural realities that are never going away ? Like they are going to "win" this "war" against evolution, gay rights, and no, we're not putting formal Christian school prayer back into "public school", thanks. Have we ever seen a time since the sixties where this futile struggle against cultural change has now become the basis for the greatest "spiritual battle" of our time ? (from a Christian standpoint)...

 

No one is feeding it to them, it is a sort of self sustaining cycle. Sure there are some wolves feeding on them, but no one is feeding it to them. The desire to be know nothings is deep in American Culture. "He's smart, but you wouldn't know it," is considered a compliment in these circles. The wolves make tons of money by going with the program. If a wolf got up and used his/her entertainment talents to support or teach evolution or the Jesus seminar, they would soon be a hungry wolf.

 

In my old denomination the Church of Christ, the denomination that claims it is not a denomination, many congregations will not hire a college, or seminary trained man for the pulpit. Even the conservative schools produce contaminated people as far as these churches are concerned. Knowing about Q would be enough to contaminate you, whatever you believed about it. However, some congregations want to know about these things in order to be able to refute them. That is dangerous because this knowledge stands a chance of convincing you that the "liberal ideas" are more true.

[RationalOkie]

Hope we don't have to extract "Okie" when he's "rounded up" at the next book burning. This guy ain't kidding; the stuff I've heard from Southern US Christians these days is not just problematic; it's extremism.

 

 

Thanks Franko - I'm counting on the Northern states to keep voting against these fundie politicians from the South. You would be shocked at how many of them there are now. If that doesn't work feel free to nuke us

[Legion]

I’m selling tents for all those who are camping out in this ridiculously long thread.

 

Anyone interested?

[Antlerman]

I’m selling tents for all those who are camping out in this ridiculously long thread.

 

Anyone interested?

It's like Woodstock. It just gets bigger and bigger as we rally around the stage for LNC to come back for an encore. (Never fight with nature....)

[Mriana]

 

 

Again your looking at this in the context of your particular church which most likely does in fact believe it's true.

But even if they don't agree with the arguments, why is it that it seems like most fundamentalist churches don't even bother to learn any opposing arguments? Like, even if they don't believe in the Q gospel, why is it that more churches aren't at least aware that this argument about the Q gospel even exists and teaching their members the arguments for and against it?

Because they need to keep it simple and not confuse them with a lot of options. "Just stick with this son, and you'll be OK."

 

I don't think they are giving people enough credit, just as you aren't giving some Lutherans enough credit concerning their knowledge of the Bible.

 

(Sorry if I sound uncharacteristically flippant here. I'm running on 2 hours of sleep and feel borderline hallucinogenic right now. Therefore, I'm not responsible for what might come out here. )

 

Get some sleep. That's two posts in as many days that you haven't gotten any sleep. That's not healthy.

 

What if you went up to an average church-goer at a Lutheran church and asked them about Q? Chances are they probably don't even know what books are in the NT itself, let alone Q.

 

This is where I don't think you are giving them enough credit. I've known some Lutherans in my time and they knew more than what you are giving them credit for.

 

Am I being harsh?

 

Maybe.

 

Well, that's a business management problem. They run it in a reactive, crisis management mode rather than a proactive approach. "It's not a problem until it's a problem." "If it 'ain't broke, don't fix it!"

 

 

OK, there you go...

 

Is it broken because they aren't giving their "flock" enough credit and are in a sense, treating them as imbeciles. I think if one asks, they are entitled to the the answer and as much more as they want. I asked questions and the answer I got was a chuckle and a "That would take a book. Here. Read this, read this, read this, and oh yes, try this one too." Thus, started my research and exploration, along with a few religious classes at the State uni. All those book suggestions were a bit overwhelming at first, but I got through them and was salivating for more, because I had even more questions. I got more books thrown at me. Of course, these books are slanted slightly towards Episcopal theologians and scholars. So, it's amazing I came out of the sea of ignorance with a lack of a belief and lack of a god concept. Of course, taking uni classes on top of it all exposed me to other people, thoughts, philosophies, and religions outside the Episcopal Church too. Which before it was over, I pissed off many priests, even one recently. What can I say and the one I thought was my friend, missed some opportunities to answer my more resent questions due to her anger. Oh well.

[Antlerman]

I don't think they are giving people enough credit, just as you aren't giving some Lutherans enough credit concerning their knowledge of the Bible.

Oh no, that's not it. It wasn't meant as a put-down to Lutherans. The comparison was that the fundi's are all about worshiping the Bible and yet they seem to not have more knowledge than those of the mainstream who are not as pre-occupied as Bible Thumpers. That's not what Lutherans are about, but is what they are supposed to be. It was a put down to the fundi's, not Lutherans. I actually have respect for Lutherans. My mother is one, and I find little reason to be disturbed by her practice of faith. In fact, I could be considered supportive of it for her. I do however have a great deal of disrespect for fundamentalism and consider it unhelpful to people, on nearly every level.

 

What if you went up to an average church-goer at a Lutheran church and asked them about Q? Chances are they probably don't even know what books are in the NT itself, let alone Q.

 

This is where I don't think you are giving them enough credit. I've known some Lutherans in my time and they knew more than what you are giving them credit for.

Next time I'm visiting my mother, I'll go to church with her and test my theory. Again, it's not meant as a put down at all. Based on my experience, church for them is not about being a Bible expert to prove their faith to the unbelievers. I'm sure there are some who are interested, but it is likely for very different reasons than for your LNC's out there...

 

 

Well, that's a business management problem. They run it in a reactive, crisis management mode rather than a proactive approach. "It's not a problem until it's a problem." "If it 'ain't broke, don't fix it!"

 

Is it broken because they aren't giving their "flock" enough credit and are in a sense, treating them as imbeciles. I think if one asks, they are entitled to the the answer and as much more as they want.

What I meant was they the leadership is lazy/fearful to offer too much to stimulate their minds because they see the flock as happy where their at, just following along. Even from an Evangelical point of view, that's not proactive. I said this in response to Neon pointing out that his parent's church are dealing with nothing new and are living on the accolades of ancient, now irrelevant arguments. The leadership sees it keeps the flock happy, so their choosing not to rock that boat. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", they say to themselves.

 

At least LNC's "think tank" is working on updating their arguments to something current, despite it all being based on the same sort of logic fallacies of all apologetics of old. (The one thing you NEVER hear them say however is, "You could be right, and I've been misunderstanding things". Now that would be a NEW approach never taken!)

 

I asked questions and the answer I got was a chuckle and a "That would take a book. Here. Read this, read this, read this, and oh yes, try this one too." Thus, started my research and exploration, along with a few religious classes at the State uni. All those book suggestions were a bit overwhelming at first, but I got through them and was salivating for more, because I had even more questions. I got more books thrown at me. Of course, these books are slanted slightly towards Episcopal theologians and scholars. So, it's amazing I came out of the sea of ignorance with a lack of a belief and lack of a god concept. Of course, taking uni classes on top of it all exposed me to other people, thoughts, philosophies, and religions outside the Episcopal Church too. Which before it was over, I pissed off many priests, even one recently. What can I say and the one I thought was my friend, missed some opportunities to answer my more resent questions due to her anger. Oh well.

 

It would be nice if people could take less protective views of their belief systems to allow them to be open for consideration of multiple points of view. That would make it all a lot more interesting and rewarding to everyone. Instead, we start with the premise that if what I believe is right, then what you believe must be wrong," and we tie all our emotions into that, and off we go defending it and never really learning through how others interpret the world. Hopefully once we can get past this notion of true/false to one of perspectives on truths, then we can grow as a world.

 

Anyway, I've gotten better sleep...

[Neon Genesis]

 

What I meant was they the leadership is lazy/fearful to offer too much to stimulate their minds because they see the flock as happy where their at, just following along. Even from an Evangelical point of view, that's not proactive. I said this in response to Neon pointing out that his parent's church are dealing with nothing new and are living on the accolades of ancient, now irrelevant arguments.

Interestingly, there was a movie called The Passover Plot released in the 70s about this theory that Jesus only pretended to die on the cross and this was all apart of his conspiracy plot:

And the scholar who proposed this theory, Hugh J. Schonfield, was actually a Christian but fundamentalists try to make it seem like this is an argument those whacked out atheists came up with to destroy their religion.

[Mriana]

Oh no, that's not it. It wasn't meant as a put-down to Lutherans. The comparison was that the fundi's are all about worshiping the Bible and yet they seem to not have more knowledge than those of the mainstream who are not as pre-occupied as Bible Thumpers. That's not what Lutherans are about, but is what they are supposed to be. It was a put down to the fundi's, not Lutherans. I actually have respect for Lutherans. My mother is one, and I find little reason to be disturbed by her practice of faith. In fact, I could be considered supportive of it for her. I do however have a great deal of disrespect for fundamentalism and consider it unhelpful to people, on nearly every level.

 

I have some respect for Lutherans. They aren't too bad.

 

Next time I'm visiting my mother, I'll go to church with her and test my theory.

 

Hopefully she's educated herself.

 

What I meant was they the leadership is lazy/fearful to offer too much to stimulate their minds because they see the flock as happy where their at, just following along. Even from an Evangelical point of view, that's not proactive. I said this in response to Neon pointing out that his parent's church are dealing with nothing new and are living on the accolades of ancient, now irrelevant arguments. The leadership sees it keeps the flock happy, so their choosing not to rock that boat. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", they say to themselves.

 

However, it is broken. Other ministers have noticed this too, at least in the Episcopal Church, yet they still dumb down the sermons/homilies.

 

It would be nice if people could take less protective views of their belief systems to allow them to be open for consideration of multiple points of view. That would make it all a lot more interesting and rewarding to everyone. Instead, we start with the premise that if what I believe is right, then what you believe must be wrong," and we tie all our emotions into that, and off we go defending it and never really learning through how others interpret the world. Hopefully once we can get past this notion of true/false to one of perspectives on truths, then we can grow as a world.

 

Anyway, I've gotten better sleep...

 

I wish they would too. It would save on arguments and alike.

 

I'm glad you have finally gotten better sleep. I think your sleeplessness is contagious though. I didn't sleep well last night.

[Antlerman]

I'm glad you have finally gotten better sleep. I think your sleeplessness is contagious though. I didn't sleep well last night.

Yes, that seems to be an issue lately.

[Antlerman]

I'm glad you have finally gotten better sleep. I think your sleeplessness is contagious though. I didn't sleep well last night.

Yes, that seems to be an issue lately.

 

Change of seasons?

 

Phanta

 

p.s. Love the banter in between LNC posts.

I wonder if he's had enough yet? Like I anticipate, it will die not with a bang, but a whimper. The room fills with conversation, forgetting the reason we all came in the first place. It's all an exercise in futility.

[Auracle]

Isn't it also condescending for churches to presume that only church leaders are intelligent enough to handle the real truth?

 

This reminds me of the Catholic Pedophile Priest Problem. They hid the truth so they wouldn't hurt the feelings of the people attending church (and donating). While it is done for a different reason than withholding information about the Bible and biblical criticism, it has the same intended result - leaving the parishioner in ignorance for their own good (and for the good of the church).

 

I would have to say that leaving the parishioners in ignorance of the pedophile problem is really not intended for the good of the parishioners, but for the supposed good of the church.

[Mriana]

Isn't it also condescending for churches to presume that only church leaders are intelligent enough to handle the real truth?

 

This reminds me of the Catholic Pedophile Priest Problem. They hid the truth so they wouldn't hurt the feelings of the people attending church (and donating). While it is done for a different reason than withholding information about the Bible and biblical criticism, it has the same intended result - leaving the parishioner in ignorance for their own good (and for the good of the church).

 

I would have to say that leaving the parishioners in ignorance of the pedophile problem is really not intended for the good of the parishioners, but for the supposed good of the church.

 

That I agree with Auracle. There is no other reason than the supposed good of the church. However, hiding the truth/reality about Xianity (dumbing it down, if you prefer) maybe a little bit of both.